Marshall goes negative

September 8, 2010 11:51 am

by Jason · 61 comments

I heard yesterday that Rep. Jim Marshall had hit the airwaves in GA-8, choosing to go negative against Austin Scott, his Republican challenger, by attacking him on immigration:

While I’m no fan of the GOP position on immigration and the rhetoric surrounding it, Scott did vote for SB 529 in 2006, which was once viewed as the strongest anti-immigration law in the country.

[UPDATE] Correction. This is Marshall’s second ad. You can view his first ad here. Thanks to Marshall’s campaign for letting me know.

Paulding Pundit September 8, 2010 at 11:57 am

Weak. Very weak.

Aggressive Opinion September 8, 2010 at 12:11 pm

Jim Marshall is a sinking ship. If this is the best he can come up with on Austin Scott, I hope he’s ready to start packing up his office in Washington. Austin Scott has made it clear the reason he did not vote for that bill was because it made Credit Unions the enforcers of immigration policy. What did you do about immigration the past 4 years while your party was in power “Mr. Marshall”? Nothing.

polisavvy September 8, 2010 at 12:16 pm

This appears as an act of desperation. I agree with Aggressive Opinion — what has MARSHALL done the past four years regarding immigration? I believe we all know the answer to that one — absolutely nothing!

ZazaPachulia September 8, 2010 at 12:59 pm

Marshall is in trouble.

If there’s one place to hit Austin Scott, it’s on his quotes supporting then-Speaker Glenn Richardson. Some of us like the fact that a politician dares to talk about and think about morals in this day and age. The (R) next to Austin’s name should carry him.

ChuckEaton September 8, 2010 at 1:32 pm

Does anyone konw if Marshall went negative on Goddard? You can tell a lot about an incumbent’s internal polling by the way he’s conducting his campaign.

Obviously, if the challenger isn’t a significant threat, then you don’t waste valuable campaign resources acknowledging your challenger.

Ken in Eastman September 8, 2010 at 2:03 pm

Marshall did go negative on Rick Goddard.

The topic? Come on, guess.

Illegal immigration. In ’08 Marshall waited until near the end of the campaign to launch negative ads on Goddard, misrepresenting Goddard’s positions. The fact that it’s early September and Marshall is already going negative, tells us that Marshall is much more worried.

I believe the second purpose of the negative ads is to keep people’s focus off of Marshall’s less than sterling performance as a Congressman. Marshall’s hamster-like leadership is, and should be, a topic.

polisavvy September 8, 2010 at 2:38 pm

Marshall is doing just as expected — attacking instead of addressing the issues and concerns that we all have. Let’s keep the eyes off of his lack of stellar accomplishments and try to just attack Austin Scott. Hope that works for you, Jim; but, if that’s the best you can do, good luck.

Ken in Eastman September 8, 2010 at 2:10 pm

While no one should start popping the corks on the champagne yet, if this is the best (worst) Marshall can do, then Austin Scott will be our next GA-8 Congressman.

And as Aggressive Opinion correctly points out, it begs the question, “What has Jim Marshall done about illegal immigration?”

macho September 8, 2010 at 9:48 pm

The most important vote, by far, on illegal immigration, and other major issues like healthcare, is the vote for Speaker.

redderstate September 8, 2010 at 2:15 pm

Why did he have a moral problem with charging illegal immigrants? People here are real concerned about the issue. Seems like a dumb thing to say.

John Konop September 8, 2010 at 2:22 pm

It was a cheap shot.

…..“My reason [for the no vote] was that it exempted bank and credit unions that did wire transfers. I had a problem with making Western Union the enforcer of immigration policy,” Scott said.

One month later, Scott noted, the GOP-run Legislature passed a comprehensive bill aimed at illegal immigration – which he voted for – that was called the toughest in the country. That is, until Arizona passed its measure earlier this year……

redderstate September 8, 2010 at 2:25 pm

Huh? How does that explain the moral problem quote?

John Konop September 8, 2010 at 2:45 pm

redderstate,

I have no idea but I am more about the bottom line. At the end any rational person would not want one market segment given rules while the other is given an advantage. And one cannot argue Austin voted for the get tough immigration bill. I am not part of his campaign and my comments are my own opinion. For full discloser I have made no secrete of my support of Austin.

redderstate September 8, 2010 at 3:00 pm

Fair enough, though also fair to say that if we don’t know why he said that, we can’t say it’s a cheap shot.

My support is always up for grabs until I know my choices. Any honest conservative has a shot at me (you know, he has to be smart enough, pretty competent and all that, too). I know Scott was out front on the flag. I’m not some diehard flagger, but picking that fight was not what i would call conservative. If he’s got a ‘moral probelm’ with punishing illegal immigration, that’s not conservative in my book. You never know exactly what you’re going to have to vote for. So the jury’s still out on whether he’s conservative.

If he can’t explain the moral problem quote, then his response wouldn’t be honest either. Did he bring up the credit union thing at the time, or just the moral problem?

Paulding Pundit September 8, 2010 at 3:32 pm

Marshall is no conservative. A few “per-approved” no votes on highly publicized bills does not make one a conservative. Day in and day out, Marshall has voted along side with liberal Democrats in congress.

http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2009/2009%20Combined%20Ratings.html#GA

redderstate September 8, 2010 at 4:18 pm

Like I said, my vote is up for grabs. I have some core beliefs, but there are at least some Democrats who can reflect them.

So right now I’m mostly asking questions. When Marshall was Mayor here, he was known for doing things his own way. Pre approved votes seem seem pretty out of character. How do we know that there are any?

John Konop September 8, 2010 at 5:00 pm

My biggest issue with Marshall beyond spending is his support of “No Child Left Behind”. This has done nothing more than drive up drop-out rates while the lobbyist money changers in Washington like Kathy Cox feed off tax payers money while kids get left behind!

redderstate September 8, 2010 at 5:53 pm

Marshall was elected the same year Barnes was defeated, right? I think it was already law then.

John Konop September 8, 2010 at 8:44 pm

His Democratic opponent Robert Nowak in 2006 made it an issue in the primary against Marshall. I said support not vote.

redderstate September 8, 2010 at 10:36 pm

That Nowak guy was kind of weird … I don’t actually care much about no child left behind, but I googled it and didn’t find anywhere that Marshall supports or opposes it.

Ken in Eastman September 10, 2010 at 5:08 pm

redderstate,

Less than two hours before the vote on the Cap and Trade Tax, Marshall would not say how he would vote. I called both his Macon and Washington offices and was told the same thing, “Congressman Marshall has not yet decided how he will vote.”

This was a “no-brainer” bill. As for why Marshall did not yet know how he would vote on such important legislation, draw your on conclusions.

analogkid September 8, 2010 at 7:23 pm

I know Scott was out front on the flag. I’m not some diehard flagger, but picking that fight was not what i would call conservative.

I have to disagree with you here. The flag was becoming an obstacle to Georgia getting certain conventions and other events, so changing the flag was indeed conservative (fiscally speaking), in that it improved Georgia’s chances of bringing in business.

Further, I will say that I initially was one of those that believed that maintaining the Confederate battle flag was about heritage. That belief ended when a person I trust (who incidentally leans to the right of Sarah Palin) pointed out that the battle flag was added to the Georgia flag in 1956, as a means of rebelling against desegregation. Thus, if Georgia truly wanted an historical flag, the conservative thing to do would either have been not changing the flag in 1956 or, alternatively, to return to any one of the pre-1956 flags, none of which contained the battle flag.

ZazaPachulia September 9, 2010 at 1:50 pm

analogkid is 100-percent right. The rest of the GOP who split with Austin on the flag were pandering at best.

John Konop September 9, 2010 at 3:20 pm

redderstate,

About the problems with the BILL:

Austin Scott said:

…..“My reason [for the no vote] was that it exempted bank and credit unions that did wire transfers. I had a problem with making Western Union the enforcer of immigration policy,” Scott said.

I said:

……At the end any rational person would not want one market segment given rules while the other is given an advantage. And one cannot argue Austin voted for the get tough immigration bill….

YOU SAID:

…..Fair enough….

NOW YOU SAY:

I read the bill. That’s about all you can get on line. It’s a good bill……..

I am lost you are all over the place on this bill. Please help me understand your position. Do you agree with Marshall that only WESTERN UNION should be the target point of enforcement and while banks can freely do the wire transaction? Why or Why not?

And if the bill passed what would stop an illegal immigrant from using any bank to do the transaction? I am not sure what part of Georgia you live but up here in Cherokee county we have no shortage of bank locations for this transaction. Does Macon not have banks?

redderstate September 9, 2010 at 5:18 pm

Interface problem. “Fair enough” was meant to be part of my response to a posting that was further indented from the one you cite.

I would like to see banks as well as Western Union etc. be on the hook, but that’s no reason to vote against the bill. You could try and amend it. You could vote for it and then propose a new bill. But if you vote against it, you’re just making sure it doesn’t apply to Western Union etc., not that it applies to anyone else. It means you had a chance to do something to improve the current situation and chose not to. So I neveever buy it when a politician says they voted against a bill that had nothing affirmative wrong with it becase they say it wasn’t “good enough”.

Side note: As a practical matter, I suspect it would make little difference, because illegal immigrants generally don’t have bank accounts. They’re not that financially solvent, and I think federal law makes the ID requirements difficult as well. But I would like it to apply to everyone, because I would like to use every tool we can.

Ken in Eastman September 10, 2010 at 5:14 pm

First of all, I’m neither an attorney nor a non-attorney paid spokesman, but . . .

I believe that if we have the clerks at Wal-Mart deciding who is and is not taxed on a Moneygram to Mexico or the guy at Western Union doing the same thing that there will be a lawsuit, and it will be lost.

Also, there is an equal protection clause to deal with. Remember the California Proposition (the number escapes me) when they attempted to make changes regarding educating illegal aliens in public schools? The courts struck it down and cited the equal protection clause. If it applies there, it probably applies with regard to money transfers.

If you’re looking for a solution, then we should simply enforce the laws against hiring illegal aliens. If there is no money to transfer, aren’t they just as likely to self-deport?

redderstate September 10, 2010 at 8:33 pm

Amen. Would love someone to put some of these employers who are “unknowingly” using a heavily illegal workforce out of business. I would use every tool we can find for enforcement.

Illegal immigrants aren’t suppose to get Medicaid (though of course some do), so obviously you can treat them differently in some ways.

This law would slap a fee on anyone without ID. So the guy at Wal-Mart doesn’t need to know whether you’re legal per se, just whether you have a document that proves it. I think it’s a useful tool.

slyram September 8, 2010 at 3:10 pm

“Scott, from Tifton, was one of the few Republican members to vote against it.” Rep. Marshall has been setup by…Rep. Marshall. Everyone knows that the wave is coming and the best moderates can hope for would be GOPers who aren’t far right and free thinkers—like Marshall is inside the Dem Team.

Over the years, Marshall, Bishop and Barrow have gotten Democrats use to a certain amount of flex and going from Marshall to Scott would not be that dramatic. How many current southern GOP members of congress ever vote against their party. Lindsey Graham’s debating issues before voting no would be about it. Marshall has added an element of conservatism to the Democrat meetings and that is appreciated but Scott’s history of speaking his mind on the Right might be more important in the next congress if they take the House and it looks like that is going to happen. This ad actually helps Scott with swing voters.

“From Tifton”—that is says a lot also because the southern part of the 8th could tip the scale. Many Democrats down here like Austin and the world didn’t explode from having Chambliss in the Senate. What a crazy year we are having when the most conservative Black member of congress gets a huge target while the 8th would be a cakewalk. I am just saying.

ZazaPachulia September 8, 2010 at 7:27 pm

“This ad actually helps Scott with swing voters.”
I agree.

“Scott’s history of speaking his mind on the Right might be more important in the next congress if they take the House and it looks like that is going to happen.”

Again, I agree, but people change in Congress. I hope Austin sticks to those morals Rep. Marshall seems so eager to lambaste.

Velasco September 8, 2010 at 3:29 pm

Weak commercial Jimbo.

TPNoGa September 8, 2010 at 3:51 pm

Weak congressman.

GAOTPC September 8, 2010 at 4:56 pm

That really is a stupid ad. Way to waste your money, Jim.

How about you run an ad telling us how many times YOU voted for Nancy Pelosi? Infact, how about you make an ad for BOTH times you voted for the witch!

Doug Deal September 8, 2010 at 11:49 pm

Wouldn’t the term “goes negative” imply that Marshall ever used a positive message in any campaign, ever?

From personal experience, his campaign staff is one of the most nasty and negative groups I have ever seen in action.

On a completely unrelated note, what kind of pathetic headcase uses a cursive rendition of his first name as his campaign signs? Ray (or is that Roy) and Jim.

redderstate September 9, 2010 at 12:52 am

Ummm … did the guy kill your dog or something? Otherwise, the tone of this is pretty ironic.

Could you be specific, because people here have a pretty good impressison of him personally.

Doug Deal September 9, 2010 at 2:35 pm

Within hours of Paul Rish announcing as a candidate for the race for the Republican primary, Jim Marshall’s people sent FAXes to what seemed like every media outlet in the district “outing” him as a “ghost hunter”, even going so far as attacking his religious beliefs. This is just one example.

When Scott announced, it was freedom of information act requests to get his travel and expense records.

His campaigns against Goddard and Collins were filled with the same sleaze. It is not about trying to win on any issues with him or defending his own two time loser status in backing Nancy Pelosi as speaker or empowering this loonatic House with his tacit support, it is about attacking the character of his opponents. Generally with half baked accusation and outright lies that a more generous person would call half truths.

Jim Marshall is cut from the mold of a pure politician worried about one thing, his own person survival at the cost of the interests of the people of his state and district. He is the poster child of what is wrong with Washington.

redderstate September 9, 2010 at 2:50 pm

Wait a minute. I remember that story. It had nothing to do with the man’s religious beliefs as you or I know them. He was literally hooked up with people who do amater paranormal investigating. (I’m trying to be kind here. They loo for ghosts. Literally.)

I have no doubt that his folks looked at Scott’s expenses, and that he looked at theirs. That’s appropriate. We should know how they’re spending their money — which is our money. If there’s anything major on either side, I want to know.

You’re just looking for a reason to justify your hatred.

It made me look at your other posts. You seem to be a very angry person.

Doug Deal September 10, 2010 at 7:34 pm

Coming from a worthless shill who will go suddenly silent when your man loses in November, I’ll take that as a compliment.

Why is it all you Marshall staffers and volunteers have to offer are insults? I suppose when you have so little to offer as Jumbo, you have very little to offer than go negative.

redderstate September 10, 2010 at 8:45 pm

It seems to be hard for you to discuss the facts instead of ad hominem (and inaccurate ad hominem at that). Are yo just not capable of believing that someone rejects this “team” nonsense? I want to vote for the best person, the best individual, and I believe that to do otherwise is deeply wrong and against everything America stands for. It certainly goes against everything i was taught.

So I want to know the facts. Marshall says Scott said he had a moral problem. Scott doesn’t dispute that. So I want to know what possible moral problem he could have with a policy that gets tough on illegal immigrants. Not why I should ignore it for the good of the “team”, but what probem he could legitimately have.

You’ve made accusations about Marshall. I want to know what you’ve got to support that, just as I would accusations about Scott. Pretty simple.

You offered that his staff ridiculed someone who was literally involved in ghost hunting and labeled that ridiculing his “religious beliefs”. Not a very objective summary.

As to negativity, as I’ve said, I spent a little time reviewing your posts, and find this charge from you to be very ironic. You really are a very angry man.

peachstealth September 9, 2010 at 9:47 am

Politics, as practiced in DC, is a team sport and the team with the most members gets to run congress. I don’t like the way the Democrats are running it so I’ll vote for the other team.
Nothing against Jim, if he’d switch parties I’d vote for him, but his vote for Queen Nancy to remain on her throne is enough reason for me to vote for Scott.

redderstate September 9, 2010 at 10:59 am

Sorry, but that’s kind of un-American. We judge the person as an individual. To do otherwise would be an affront to God and my Grandma and everyone who taught me right from wrong.

So if you believe Marshall is right on important issues, then you should vote for him, which I am weighing whether to do myself. If other people barter away their votes for party favors, then take them to task. They’re the ones doing wrong.

Doug Grammer September 9, 2010 at 12:21 pm

How about we judge him on his individual vote for Speaker? I think that’s American. The Speaker sets up the game and decides what the house, as whole, does. That first vote the Congressman Marshall casts (for Speaker) is the most important vote he will cast in an entire legislative session.

redderstate September 9, 2010 at 12:56 pm

Nah, that’s just trying to make this “team” thing fly. It’s just an excuse. Look at the man. Anything less is deeply unamerican and immoral.

They all have a whole voting record etc. to look at, and that’s what I’m in the process of doing. Whatever some speaker or chairman puts up, you can always vote down. It’s the people who are not independent who are to blame.

I’ll give Scott credit that he was independent, for example. Unfortuantely, on this one he may not have used his independence well. I’m having a hard time seeing why anyone would vote against penalizing illegal immigrants. And what about the moral problem quote? Can someone please explain to me what the moral problem is with cracking down on illegal immigration? We just want folks to follow the law. What’s the moral problem with that?

Any honest conservative can get my vote. Party does not matter.

AnyoneElse2010 September 9, 2010 at 2:29 pm

If you are a mark for Rep. Marshall go ahead and say so. You say you just want to know, but everything that you have typed so far would leave me to believe that you have decided to vote for Jim Marshall a long time ago.

Do the research for yourself instead of listening to a politician’s commercial and you will see that Austin Scott is one of the strongest candidates to fight the battle against illegal immigrants.

And a question for you, what has Jim Marshall done in his 8 years in FEDERAL office to stem the influx of illegal immigrants?

Doug Deal September 9, 2010 at 2:37 pm

He probably doesn’t even live in the district. Probably just part of a package deal from a political consulting group advertising to act as their lapdog online.

redderstate September 9, 2010 at 2:54 pm

I did some research. I read the bill. That’s about all you can get on line. It’s a good bill. I can’t see why anyone would vote against it.

The man said he had a moral problem with the bill. I would like to know what it is. I don;t appreciate people trying to tell me that;s not important, because it is important to me.

I’m still deciding. But I’m fair. I apply the same standards to everyone. I realize that to a lot of people on this board that sounds outrageous, but so be it.

If Scott gives me some information about Marshall, I’ll investigate that, too. Mind boggling, I know!

AnyoneElse2010 September 9, 2010 at 3:01 pm

How about you call Austin’s campaign office or even get a business card from Austin at an event and ask him yourself.

Again I ask you what has Jim Marshall done to stem illegal immigration in the time that he has been elected? If you select nothing you would be absolutely correct. I guess extreme negligence of one of the most dire problems that this nation has is alright.

redderstate September 9, 2010 at 3:12 pm

I just might do that. But it’s not a good sign that he won’t tell the press. What’s to stop him from telling everyone what they want to hear?

Why do you say Marshall has done nothing? I remember ads from past campaigns saying he’s voted for and sponsored stuff. I can’t say exactly what, but it seems pretty bold to just say it’s nothing. Maybe I’ll look for that stuff, too, but it’s pretty hard to search by topic.

All I’m asking is that people neither make accusations without enough evidence nor brush off reasonable evidence that gets presented. Scott’s not disputing what he said, so what did he mean? I think illegal immigration is a real problem, and I don’t like the idea of someone having a moral roblem with cracking down on it.

John Konop September 9, 2010 at 3:22 pm

redderstate,

About the problems with the BILL:

Austin Scott said:

…..“My reason [for the no vote] was that it exempted bank and credit unions that did wire transfers. I had a problem with making Western Union the enforcer of immigration policy,” Scott said.

I said:

……At the end any rational person would not want one market segment given rules while the other is given an advantage. And one cannot argue Austin voted for the get tough immigration bill….

YOU SAID:

…..Fair enough….

NOW YOU SAY:

I read the bill. That’s about all you can get on line. It’s a good bill……..

I am lost you are all over the place on this bill. Please help me understand your position. Do you agree with Marshall that only WESTERN UNION should be the target point of enforcement and while banks can freely do the wire transaction? Why or Why not?

And if the bill passed what would stop an illegal immigrant from using any bank to do the transaction? I am not sure what part of Georgia you live but up here in Cherokee county we have no shortage of bank locations for this transaction. Does Macon not have banks?

redderstate September 9, 2010 at 5:20 pm

I replied to you above. I think you may have fallen to the same interface problem that led my earlier post (that you reference) to be misplaced.

Ken in Eastman September 10, 2010 at 5:26 pm

redderstate,

Jim Marshall has sponsored exactly one (1) bill that was passed. It changed the name of The Ocmulgee National Monument to The Ocmulgee Mounds National Monument. That’s his accomplishment in eight years.

Marshall holds no leadership positions on any committee or sub-committee on which he serves. He holds no leadership positions in the Democrat Party.

As for Jim Marshall being a conservative, why did he vote to raise the federal debt limit earlier this year to $14.3 trillion? If he’s a conservative, why does he support Nancy Pelosi? And yes, that is a valid argument.

peachstealth September 9, 2010 at 3:31 pm

Nothing un-American about it. His most important vote in the next two years will be the one for speaker. I fully disagree with that one so I vote for Scott
Anyway, he only votes the right way when his vote isn’t really needed . If the Dems needed one more vote to pass something, he’d be there .

redderstate September 9, 2010 at 5:25 pm

That’s kind of circular. Only really holds if you assume that everyone buys into this “team player” nonsense, which is about as un-American as it gets. I will judge someone innocent of seling out his vote until there’s reasonable evidence otherwise. It’s extremely unethical and a very serious charge. If you have evidence, present it. It would have a bearing on my vote.

Besides, Marshall is a stubborn sonofagun. That’s one thing everyone around here knows going back to when he was mayor. He’s sure got flaws — can be a little arrogant for one . But buckling under to Nancy Pelosi? That would take some solid proof.

Doug Grammer September 10, 2010 at 12:06 am

You may call it un-American all you like, but that doesn’t make it true. Americans like team sports. You may not like team sports, but until he starts voting for Mike Pence or another GOP congressman for Speaker, it’s obvious what team he is on.

redderstate September 10, 2010 at 3:23 am

You miss the point entirely. Politics is not a sport. The government taxes us and spends our money (sometimes too much and sometimes not well), can put us in jail, and in many cases can have the power of life and death over us. So this “game” metaphor of yours is very troubling.

Americans don’t like this partisan bull, to be frank. Just you do. Shouldn’t project that onto everyone else. Most people believe that’s really screwing the country up.

Americans judge the man, not the party. It’s a basic principle. There’s a reason grammar school teachers say that instead of, “Pick your team, and stick with it no matter what!”, and thank God for that.

So please, if you need to try to beat down some “team”, stick to professional football. That’s supposed to be a “team sport”.

Doug Grammer September 10, 2010 at 9:30 pm

Fine. For arguements sake, let’s assume that the vote for Speaker is not important. (It is.) What has Congressman Marshall done that makes him so valuable? What bills has he authored? What laws did he help pass? What laws did he help prevent?

“I can’t say exactly what….” if you want us to judge the man, you’ll need to say something good about the man…if you can. Don’t tell what what he’s done before he got to congress. He’s been there eight years. Tell us why we need to keep him, other than flying to visit our troops for a photo op in a relection year.

Doug Grammer September 13, 2010 at 11:53 pm

hello crickets

Ken in Eastman September 10, 2010 at 5:29 pm

redderstate,

There’s a reason grammar school teachers say that instead of, “Pick your team, and stick with it no matter what!”, and thank God for that.

I think you already picked your team. Hark! I hear braying!

redderstate September 10, 2010 at 8:54 pm

Really? (How wrong you are.) How would you expect an objective person to evaluate this information? When I hear an answer, I’ll evaluate it. I’m not going to assume away evidence, or assume the truth of a charge, because of a bias. Again, I know that a bunch of you folks think that if you’re not on one “team” you’re on the other, but that gets the world dead wrong. Some of us are actually fair.

If y’all want to convince me, provide me with the answer. Tell me what the moral problem is.

Ken in Eastman September 11, 2010 at 11:23 am

Then explain your statement about sticking to a team. For someone who wants everyone to not take “teams” into account, you give Marshall a HUGE pass to be on the “team” that opposes the vast majority of the people of GA-8 on nearly every current issue.

I think you’re obviously being inconsistent. So is it teams or not? You cannot have it both ways.

Bulldog1 September 11, 2010 at 1:56 pm

Jim Marshall only pays lip service to being conservative at election time. I have called the Congressmna’ office on several key votes, such as health care reform, and even a 2 hours before the vote they could not tell you the Congressman’s position or vote. You know why because he had to have Nancy’s permission to vote for the will of the 8th District. The permission is only given each time if there are enough votes to secure passage of the liberal agenda. If Nancy needs Jim’s vote she will get it despite the will of the vast majority of citizens Jim serves.

I agree with Doug. Tell me what have you done Jim since being in Congress. Every election we see the Jim Marshall t.v. ad touting his Vietnam service as an Army Ranger. Thank you Jim for your service. I even know a man who personally served with you in Vietnam-he said you were a hell of an Army Ranger. But Jim what have you done in Congress- NOTHING but draw a a check. Go home Jim.

Maybe Marsahll should return as Mayor of Macon. He was definately better than C. Jack Ellis who was running again. Marshall would be at home in Macon in the only Democratic stronghold of the 8th.

Scott is the BEST choice for the 8th District.

Ken in Eastman September 13, 2010 at 3:54 pm

Amen! +3.75

Comments on this entry are closed.