Marty Marty Marty

/in , , /by

I’m going to take a guess and say that Marty Peretz has been designated as the guy who will give Joementum cover for joining the Republican party, in fact if not in name. I say that for two reasons. First, there’s this little bit of nuttiness:

Worse can besaid of Bill Clinton’s stumping in Connecticut for Joe (and Hillary’sendorsement, too.) When Clinton came into the state, Lieberman andLamont were running dead even in the polls, more or less. Clinton’sappearance began Lieberman’s decline. Within two or three days,Lieberman was down by ten points. (In the last few days of thecampaign, Lieberman recovered considerably … but not enough.)

Obviously, Marty is wrong on the facts. Clinton’s campaigning came after Joementum saw he was losing big. Clinton came in. Joementum made up lost ground.

So what’s the reason for Marty’s delusions? Well, it probably has to do with the fact that Clinton said he will support the winner of the primary (and Hillary has already sent off a big check to that effect). The guy who helped Joementum keep this close is about to endorse his opponent. So Marty does Joementum’s backstabbing for him, diminishing the value of a Clinton endorsement just before he endorses Joementum’s opponent. Hey Bill?!?! After Joementum’s shiv during Monicagate, did you really expect any better behavior this time?

DeLay's Dilemma

/in , , /by

Let’s say you’re Tom DeLay. It’s February 2006, and your legal defense fund is beginning to run dry.Well, not just run dry. It’s already running a deficit. You’re already polling behind your Democratic opponent in the polls, and you haven’t even won the primary yet. Thing is, you consider the three people running against you disloyal. Fuck ’em. Who are they to accuse the Hammer of corruption? So you stay in the race just to prevent one of them from benefiting from the misfortune of Tom DeLay. No problem. You can whup their asses in the primary and just deal with getting a candidate later.

Fast forward to Summer 2006. At this point, you’ve got $1.4 million in your campaign fund, with $1 million in unpaid legal bills. With lots more legal bills to come. And your Democratic opponent has $2 million in his campaign chest. You know you’re not going to win your seat. In fact, all your colleagues want you out, ASAP, because you’re making them look like crooks. And frankly, with the Legal Defense Fund donations slowing down, it’s beginning to look like you’ll need to use all of your campaign funds to pay the lawyers. And shit, they haven’t even gotten Buckham yet. There’s a while ‘nother legal case on the Abramoff charges, that’s coming down the pike.

So you just ask the head of the TX GOP party to declare you ineligible. Tell them I’m from VA, now. Those Democrats won’t do anything about it. They’re a bunch of pansies. Right?

Lamont's "Single Issue" Voters

/in , , , , , , , /by

The Q-Poll shows that 44% of Lamont’s supporters support him mainly because of Lieberman’s stance on the Iraq war. And Markos anticipates a bunch of pundits frowning on the large number of "Single Issue" voters.

For a pundit to suggest the Iraq war is a "Single Issue" simply betrays their ignorance of the impact that war has and will continue to have on this country and the rest of the world.

Some are opposed to the war because they’re opposed to 2,500 Americans dead, 18,000 Americans wounded, perhaps 100,000 Iraqis dead, untold wounded. Some oppose the war simply because it uses violence to solve problems that should be solved using other means.

Some are opposed to the war because it has ruined our military. Two-thirds of our active army and three-quarters of our National Guard face readiness problems because it needs to replace equipment used in Iraq. Extended deployments and lowered recruiting standards are having bad effects on the military, their families, and our mission. The Iraq war–sold as a way to make our country safer–has only exposed it defensively.

Some are opposed to the war because it has thoroughly destabilized Iraq, and threatens to destabilize the entire region. By almost every standard, Iraqi quality of life is worse today than it was under Saddam.

Some are opposed to the war because it has created precisely the problem that it was cynically sold as a way to prevent. Iraq is creating terrorists, at a time when the threat of terrorism remains very real.

Some are opposed to the war because it has turned us into an international pariah. Some countries no longer trust us. Others want nothing to do with our aggressive ways.

Bi-Partisan Joe

/in , /by

Joementum the "Democrat"

/in , /by