1. Culpepper says:

    Nice appearance. Too bad about the whole character thing.

    I was catching up on coverage of the Boehner event and found this gem:

    “Scott’s campaign is running campaign ads criticizing Marshall and Pelosi’s vote for the TARP bank bailout, but that program received no attention during the rally event.”

    No wonder, since the Scott family directly benefits from the TARP program. Maybe Scott should give back his wife’s salary if he is that opposed to it.

    Saying one thing and doing another?

    • polisavvy says:

      Here you go again — bringing up that as you have in the past. I have a few questions for you, though: (1) How do you know that Austin Scott would have voted for TARP in the first place had he been in Congress? (2) How exactly did the Scott family benefit from TARP? (3) How do you know that the institution that his wife works for actually asked for the TARP money or was the TARP money crammed down the throat of the bank like was done with many other banks? (4) How can you tie her income to the TARP money — does she earn a salary or is her money tied into strictly money received from TARP? (5) If she went to work everyday and did her job, what makes you think that she is not entitled to her income? and (6) What woman would allow a man to make her “give back” a salary that she herself earned?

      I realize that you aren’t a fan of Austin Scott — you have made that quite clear before; however, jumping to conclusions and making accusations like these are of no consequence. At the time of TARP, Austin Scott was representing his district in the Georgia House — he had no control over TARP. And, lastly, I have one final question for you — did his wife have any control over the TARP money?

      • Culpepper says:

        His wife works for a bank called the Private Bank, the stock symbol is pvtb. Check out the 1/9/2009 press release. The bank applied for and received $240 million in TARP funds, which they have not paid back. She works there and draws a salary. Maybe she evens supports the campaign with it.

        In terms of TARP itself, it was passed during the Bush administration in a time of crisis. The federal govt has acutally made money on the money invested.

        My issue is, why choose this battle for an ad against Marshall? There are so many others.

        His lack of political prowess continues to amaze me. Like acting shocked that his divorce records have become an issue. Like trying to hide behind his son when it came out, when the only person responsible for his son being exposed to the public arena is Scott himself.

        If he wins this election , it is because he stumbled like a drunk in the darkness into the right race in a Republican year. Nancy Pelosi did more to win his campaign than he could ever do.

        • polisavvy says:

          Do you even know Austin and Vivien Scott? Seriously. Her salary is vital to the campaign? Where do you get this stuff? Do you have that vivid of an imagination? And, at the end of the day, is this the best you could do? You obviously have some ax to grind and that’s fine; but, why don’t you stick to facts and not innuendo?

          You want to get sucked into a divorce issue that you know no details (at least I hope you don’t since it is a sealed document)? How has he acted shocked about the divorce issue? How has he hidden behind his child? What, do you really think that when the whole divorce thing broke that Austin Scott went into hiding? He’s been all over the district. Plus, if you actually paid any attention to the debate in Perry last week, Austin Scott said that he and his ex-wife would respect the Court’s decision — he said nothing about them appealing (which they have a legal right to do) — he said they could respect the Court’s decision.

          When Austin Scott wins this election, it will be because he worked his fanny off. He and his staff have raised a tremendous amount of money — more than Marshall (so much for your whole theory that his wife’s salary is supporting the campaign); they have had him in every county of the 8th numerous times; plus, with 11 days to go, he’s still going strong. His staff has a huge number of volunteers who are being sure that the 8th knows about Austin Scott. In my opinion, Pelosi will hurt Jim Marshall with the voters of the 8th far more than she will hurt Austin Scott. Remember, Austin Scott would never have voted for her in the first place — your good buddy Jim can’t say the same!!

        • My compliments culpepper,

          You guys do “Smear and Distract” as well as anyone.

          Jim Marshall is a failure. So you do not want him to be the focus of the debate.

          1 – In eight wasted years, Jim Marshall has sponsored ONE piece of legislation that was passed. He changed the name of The Ocmulgee National Monument to The Ocmulgee Mounds National Monument.

          2 – Jim Marshall holds ZERO leadership positions – not in his party caucus and not on either of the two committees he serves on.

          3 – Jim Marshall likes to brag about a piece of legislation he sponsored to make it more difficult for illegal aliens to get jobs AND he brags about how he can work both sides of the aisle. So why does Marshall only have FOUR co-sponsors out of the other 434 house members? His piece of legislation still sits in committee.

          4 – Marshall claims to be a fiscal conservative, but rather than find a way to reduce spending he voted to increase the federal debt level. Jim Marshall also failed to push for the House to even pass a budget this year.

          5 – Marshall suddenly – after eight years and four votes to make her Speaker – decides that Nancy Pelosi is too liberal and too divisive. He claims he just realized this. He is either a liar or incredibly stupid.

          6 – As a former law professor, Marshall criticized Austin Scott for voting against a state law that would have clearly violated the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution while ducking his own responsibility to attempt to fix the illegal immigrant problem at the federal level which is the proper place to fix it.

          7 – Jim Marshall is the issue. He failed.

          • polisavvy says:

            You summed it up pretty well, Ken. There’s really no sense in arguing the obvious; however, you have probably riled his big supporters. Can’t wait to read their responses. LOL!! 🙂

            • Hi Poli,

              Thank you.

              I predict silence. Of course by now this thread is pretty quiet so they may not even see my response. Feel free to use any of the above. Which reminds me. I’m sending you an email in about one minute.

      • Charlie says:

        Fair point. I’m still in the minority as a person who thinks TARP was horribly executed yet still necessary. That said, I’m no fan of Boehner.

        I have made a few inquiries among my DC based friends, and am told that he has a virtual lock on the Speakership if/when the Republicans take control. There does not appear to be any desire from even the more conservative quarters of the Republican caucus to tilt that windmill at this time. Time will tell if that is the right course of action or not.

        • Steve says:

          Given that the program averted a depression and wound down in a timely manner with over 90% of the funding recovered, I’m curious about the “horribly executed” part. What exactly did the new administration screw up that the Katrina-and-Iraq-war gang were going to execute flawlessly?

          • Charlie says:

            Who said anything about the new administration?

            Hank Paulson testified before Congress that stuffing the banks with capital was a horrible idea. Then, after the bill passed, he changed his mind and did exactly that. I personally still believe the preferred method would have been to buy the toxic assets for cents on the dollar, which would have allowed the feds to have a more direct effect on unwinding the mortgage crisis before they screwed around and let the paralysis of the banking industry spread to the rest of the economy.

            In addition, TARP specifically said all funds must be used for banks (or at least financial institutions), yet TARP was used to bail out GM and Chrysler when Congress wouldn’t authorize funding for such. Those funds, plus AIG, represent the money that will likely not be recovered.

            I also have a problem with loosening the restrictions on AIG from the original handcuffs they received as terms of their initial bailout. AIG is likely to represent the remainder of any taxpayer funds lost, yet shareholders of a clearly insolvent institution will still probably receive at least some of their investment returned.

      • polisavvy says:

        So, Steve, with the statement Scott is campaigning against the TARP program, does that mean that Scott would have voted for it had he been in Congress? It absolutely does not mean that at all. Just because Boehner is supporting Scott doesn’t necessarily mean that Scott will always vote the same as Boehner. Scott doesn’t mind voting his conscious — he has been known to rock the boat. You can’t always compare apples to oranges.

        • Steve says:

          Not comparing apples to oranges… just D’s to R’s. When folks on Peach Pundit say it’s “hypocrisy” for national Dems to take positions opposite Marshall, are they throwing that label at the national folks or at the local guy? Whichever it is, I’m pointing out that it’s the same here.

          (For the record, I believe the correct answer is that none of these people are “hypocrites”, as it’s not hypocrisy for a local politician to be at odds with national leaders. It just happens to be a lot easier to see it that way when you look at your own party rather than someone else’s.)

Comments are closed.