Scott drops two new ads in GA-8

Austin Scott‘s campaign has released two new ads, the first a promise to “walk the walk,” promising to “keep government off our back” and establishing himself as a “conservative business owner”:

The second ad, which is as annoying as it understandable why he is putting it out, is a response to Marshall’s recent misleading attack ad:

29 comments

  1. ZazaPachulia says:

    So… does Scott’s retaliation ad mean his campaign believes that Marshall’s original “illegal alien boogeyman” attack ad actually worked?

    I know there are some crazies in Macon (Here’s looking at you, Robespierre of Macon), but surely people weren’t falling for Marshall’s crappy attack ad, were they?

    • Doug Grammer says:

      It doesn’t hurt to show that you are better on an issue than your opponent and that he’s desperate to try to distort your position. It probably helps.

    • polisavvy says:

      I view it less as a “retaliation ad” and more of a “set the record straight ad.” Jim Marshall obviously didn’t thoroughly research Austin Scott’s stance on illegal immigration or he would never have run that ad he ran. I doubt the voters of the 8th bought the Marshall ad to begin with; however, on the outside chance that some may have, then the ad Austin Scott just put out should answer any questions.

      • Poli,

        You’re nicer than me. I think Marshall is less than honorable based upon his distortion of Rick Goddard’s position on illegal aliens back in ’08 which had to be twisted to contain even half-truths and on his spokesperson referring to Austin as a career politician as soon as Austin got into the race (and Marshall makes nearly as much in a month as a full-time Congressman as Austin Scott makes in a year as a part-time state legislator).

        I think Jim Marshall precisely knows Austin Scott’s record on illegal immigration. I also think Jim Marshall would rather win with a lie than lose with the truth.

        • polisavvy says:

          I always try to be nice, Ken. (Haha!!) As for Marshall, well I would like to think that he would rather run an honorable campaign based on issues and not personal attacks,
          lies, or embellishments. He was very untruthful as far as Goddard was concerned. I don’t think Austin Scott would let him get away with that, do you?

            • polisavvy says:

              Why question is why are people making a big deal about the two ads? Yes, one was from the primary and the other is new. Considering how much ads cost to produce and market, is it any wonder that a candidate would use an ad more than once? Just saying.

                • polisavvy says:

                  LOL! (Brought a chuckle to me). I knew you wouldn’t have a problem with it. You understand the expense in campaign ads. I guess I should have responded to RuralDem instead of you — my bad! I’ve actually agreed with him a few times in the last couple of days — he really isn’t all that bad. Thanks again for answering my question about what the Party would do if the whole Deal thing gets any worse. I figured you’d have the answer.

                • RuralDem says:

                  Oh great, here comes the GOP lapdog. I guess the only good thing about it is no one can question your party loyalty.

                  We all know that if I was RuralGOP, you wouldn’t make a comment like that. In fact, if Austin Scott switched parties right now, we all know you’d slam the idea of reusing the same ad as an indicator that he’s struggling.

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    RuralDem,

                    Hey, I gave you credit for being right. To be accurate, I’m much more of a guard dog than a lap dog. I disagree with plenty of people with GOP in their screen name. If you don’t know that, you haven’t been watching.

                    If Austin Scott switched parties right now, I’d cancel my plans to go door to door for him and bring friends. However, that’s not going to happen, and I am looking forward to my trip.

                    “There are really only a couple of posters who I find it impossible to have a civil discussion with on here.”

                    I can’t speak for everyone else, but if you didn’t start out by calling me some type of dog, you might get a little more civility out of me.

                    • RuralDem says:

                      What in the world? According to my screen, you made the statement “I am just amazed that RuralDem might be right about something”, then, when I respond calling you a party loyalist, you complain and say if I didn’t call you a party lap dog I might get more civility out of you?

                      Hilarious.

                    • Tyler says:

                      “If Austin Scott switched parties right now, Iā€™d cancel my plans to go door to door for him and bring friends.”

                      This sums up my beef with Party politics. Support a candidate based on issues and merit, not party affiliation.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      It would also mean he would be voting for Pelosi for Speaker and the Dems agenda. You may not like that because people are in a party that they tend to vote one way or another, but it’s statistically true on major issues. Naming post offices, honoring sports teams, almost everyone agrees on those votes. By switching parties, it would mean that he would be agreeing to go along with the spending machine in DC. I’m not going to support that, and I doubt that you would either.

                    • Tyler says:

                      I actually believe that Austin is a different kind of candidate. He’s not a line-tower in parties. He votes on principle and doesn’t ignore it, even if his party chooses to. I support candidates based on their individual beliefs, not because they want to take out the “opposing team”. In the end, I believe Austin Scott is the best candidate running in Georgia. This is our chance to send a great candidate to Washington and send a clear message to the rest of the country.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      You have your reasons and I have mine. I want to see Pelosi fired as Speaker. Tom Graves is in. This is another chance for me to help make a difference in that effort.

                      If he were supporting out of control spending, I doubt that you would support him and neither would I. We agree on a candidate. Does it really matter why?

                    • Tyler says:

                      I’m supporting him because I know he is fighting against wasteful spending, he looks over bills to make sure every dollar is spent effectively and not wasted, and he wants to shrink government at every level. I really could care less what party he’s with; I’m just glad he’s running.

                      But, yes, it’s good we can agree on a candidate. Now let’s get him in office!

              • RuralDem says:

                “Why question is why are people making a big deal about the two ads?”

                The post clearly states “Scott drops TWO new ads in GA-08”. I simply pointed out that only one ad is new.

                Even you said in your post “Considering how much ads cost to produce and market, is it any wonder that a candidate would use an ad more than once”.

                All I was doing was pointing out that only one ad is new.

                • polisavvy says:

                  True, Rural. I just pointing out that it did not come from the Austin Scott campaign that it was a new ad. I think it was just a blunder on Pundit’s part in the wording. You know how I feel about you, Rural. I believe I made it clear to you yesterday (or the day before — have a case of CRS some days). LOL! šŸ˜‰

    • polisavvy says:

      He sounds just the same as he did last year at this time, and the year before, and the year before that. So, can we assume that there is going to be a Jim Marshall ad out soon falsely claiming that Austin Scott has changed his accent?

      • RuralDem says:

        http://www.peachpundit.com/2010/07/12/austin-scott-releases-first-tv-ad/

        I knew I read about it somewhere else.

        If you think me wondering about Scott’s accent is reason enough to assume what Jim Marshall does, then, well, you know what they say happens when you assume, right?

        I’ve stated many times before on here that I like Austin Scott. I think he would have made a dynamite Governor. It’s unfortunate that he polled so terribly in the GOP Primary. It’s also unfortunate that he wasn’t willing to stand up to Cagle and run for Lt. Governor.

        I happen to like Jim Marshall more, so I prefer him over Scott.

        Scott is the kind of conservative, yet pragmatic, Republican, that could make a lot of Conservative Democrats switch parties. I don’t think he’d have that type of impact as a Congressman, but if he was a statewide nominee, his candidacy could further set back the DPG.

        • polisavvy says:

          I can’t believe I’m saying this; but, I am actually agreeing with you on some of your points. LOL!! šŸ˜‰ I definitely think he would have been a fantastic governor (at least we certainly wouldn’t be in the mess we are in presently with the current nominee). I also agree that he could sway some Conservative Democrats (maybe he’ll get that accomplished by November 2nd). I guess we’d just have to wait and see what type of impact he may have on that front.

          One thing about you, RuralDem, you and I might disagree; but, we always manage to do it civilly. I appreciate and respect your opinion and, it appears that you do the same with me. I appreciate your not being rude, nasty, and snide. You’re a good man (or woman), RuralDem.

          • RuralDem says:

            Thanks for the comment (and I am a man lol), I appreciate that we can have a civil discussion, even when we disagree and I certainly respect your opinion as well. There are really only a couple of posters who I find it impossible to have a civil discussion with on here.

Comments are closed.