By Michael J. Smith on Thursday July 6, 2006 11:40 AM
According to the AP, la belle Barbara Boxer (left, a very unflattering photo) will be campaigning for that repulsive little ball of filth Joe Lieberman (below, a very flattering photo) in the Connecticut Democratic primary.
According to the AP, la belle Barbara Boxer (left, a very unflattering photo) will be campaigning for that repulsive little ball of filth Joe Lieberman (below, a very flattering photo) in the Connecticut Democratic primary.
Well do I recall the Kosniks' tumultuous welcome for Boxer in Las Vegas; she's the pwogs' Joan of Arc. And here she is campaigning for the pwogs' Beelzebub. I think we have finally found the elusive Democratic "message"; it runs something like this -- "Let's keep each other in office."
Comments (9)
just what does mister joe
mean by "a higher loyalty"
then "party"
i assume he means what any momma's golden boy means
ME and
my little joe-mentum
but say there is something else in his mind
then the MOI
what could it be ???
at least what "higher loyalty "
not shared by his primary opponent ??
women ?
labor ?
lamont's there too
so what joe ???
empire ?????
zion ?????
Posted by js paine | July 6, 2006 1:04 PM
Posted on July 6, 2006 13:04
Michael,
You couldnt have said it better! The whole point of being in congress, aside from vanity, is being in position to do people favors (preceded by free plane rides, golf outings, lavish parties and nominal jobs for your spouse and offspring. Who cares whether you're in the minority party?
Posted by bobw | July 6, 2006 1:26 PM
Posted on July 6, 2006 13:26
I suppose it only matters when they start to lose so many seats that the crony pool finds it hard to take care of its own.
Posted by J. Alva Scruggs | July 6, 2006 5:13 PM
Posted on July 6, 2006 17:13
I have been in the "why even bother to vote?" category since 2004. All of this nonsense just confirms my decision.
Do I care? I used to, but not anymore. A candidate does nothing for me, I feel the candidate should not be rewarded with my vote.
Wish there was a "none of the above" choice on the ballot! (But, Diebold would probably rip that off too.)
Posted by shy | July 6, 2006 6:39 PM
Posted on July 6, 2006 18:39
I theorize that vote-rigging has to be kept within "decent" limits, or the disparities are too much for even the most uncritical and servile. So a punitive vote against donks, to cost them seats, is still worthwhile. Staying at home works too.
Posted by J. Alva Scruggs | July 6, 2006 7:05 PM
Posted on July 6, 2006 19:05
Interesting bit of trivia.
Boxer campaigned FOR a pardon for Jonathan Pollard, Feinstein against.
Posted by Stanley Rogouski | July 6, 2006 7:20 PM
Posted on July 6, 2006 19:20
Keeping each other in office has always been their goal - especially at the representative level. Why else bother with all the quid pro quo gerrymandering? I mean really, can you imagine a greater sinecure than the office of state senator or house rep? I mean you get long vacations, you have a lot of control over when and how much your raise will be and you don't have to do a damn thing the customer tells you...
Posted by Tim D | July 6, 2006 10:27 PM
Posted on July 6, 2006 22:27
" I think we have finally found the elusive Democratic "message"; it runs something like this -- "Let's keep each other in office."
i can live with that
once the massive shift
in the electorate
makes this mean somthin prog like
must hop forth.....
why this bald fact needs hammering
is there are folks in the rising generation who might think
bi partisanship meant something better
then this
and partisanship some thing else
Posted by js paine | July 8, 2006 5:27 PM
Posted on July 8, 2006 17:27
Yeah, it's kind of like Russ Feingold coming to Seattle to campaign for Maria Cantwell. Of course, they didn't appear in the same hall together; he just urged his adoring fans to go doorbell for her and proceeded out into the neighborhood to show 'em how. Oh, perfidy, thy name is Democrat.
Posted by Linda Jansen | July 8, 2006 8:45 PM
Posted on July 8, 2006 20:45