Pwogs and their dawgs

By Owen Paine on Wednesday November 3, 2010 07:25 PM

She's out!

And so's he!

Headline from Paine Analytic: Blue dog / pink pwog balance in Dem House caucus shifts seriously as half of the blue dogs are washed away in the GOP wave. Huffpo seems to agree: "According to an analysis by The Huffington Post, 22 of the 46 Blue Dogs up for re-election went down on Tuesday. Notable losses included Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-S.D.), the coalition's co-chair for administration, and Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), the co-chair for policy. Two members were running for higher office (both lost), four were retiring and three races were still too close to call.

The Blue Dogs, a coalition of moderate to conservative Democrats in the House, have consistently frustrated their more progressive colleagues and activists within the party, especially during the health care debate. Blue Dog members pushed to limit the scope and the cost of the legislation and resisted some of the mandates of the bill. Last summer, seven of the eight Blue Dogs on the House Energy and Commerce Committee even threatened to block health care reform unless it met their cost requirements."

I suspect this is meaningless to most SMBIVAers, since come crunch time recently, a pwog is just a dog's breakfast; but there were pwog losses too.

Maybe some like best and want to thank most that hunk of the central florida electorate for spiking the Grayson, and others the loss of papier-mache populist el Perriello. What is more fun -- whackin' the dog or stompin' the pwog?

Comments (36)


Rep. Jim Marshall, a fiscally conservative Democrat from Macon, Ga., voted against his party's massive health care overhaul, vowed to help repeal it and refused to endorse President Barack Obama during the 2008 elections.

Still, like just about half of the nearly 50 fellow moderate to conservative Blue Dog Democrats in the House of Representatives, Marshall was a casualty of Tuesday's midterm elections. The Blue Dogs' broad losses in largely rural and conservative-leaning Southern districts broaden an ideological divide that may further stymie compromise in the wake of the Republican sweep of House seats.

"It's a shame for the country that it's the moderates that get swept out whenever there's one of these tides, so there's no seniority in the middle," said Marshall's spokesman, Doug Moore. "The middle is what America should want to protect and grow. America should want to get rid of the extremists on the left and the right. The way our system works, it's the folks in the middle working to an American solution, as opposed to a left or right solution."

Of the 23 Blue Dogs who voted against the health care overhaul, 10 lost their re-election bids. Twelve of the 25 Blue Dogs who voted against climate change legislation failed to retain their seats.

"A lot of Blue Dog Democrats served in districts that leaned Republican, and the GOP targeted those districts because they could pick up those seats," said Andra Gillespie, an assistant political science professor at Emory University. "The casualty of this is that people got upset at extremes, but they elected the extremes."

The losses include Blue Dog Coalition co-founder Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi, whose Republican-dominated district includes large swaths of the state's Gulf Coast. He voted for Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain in the 2008 presidential election and was one of only two Democrats to vote in favor of the Iraq war troop buildup.

Idaho freshman Democratic Rep. Walt Minnick, whose conservative voting record seemed to track with his heavily Republican district, and Florida Panhandle Democratic Rep. Allen Boyd also fell victim to an overall electoral attitude of "why vote for a conservative Democrat when you can have a real Republican," Gillespie said.

Others, such as Democratic Reps. Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Ben Chandler of Kentucky and Jim Costa of California, found themselves fighting for their political lives against surprisingly effective challenges from well-funded Republican opponents.

"I think that the shellacking that Blue Dogs, especially, got in Tuesday's election was part of a national trend, but it wasn't entirely by accident," said Andy Sere, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. "When we set out to take back the majority this cycle, we looked at some of the obvious places, and it was where McCain performed well in 2008, and those places are represented by Blue Dogs."

Republicans zeroed in on Blue Dogs' votes on such issues as the "cap and trade" climate change bill, the stimulus and the health care overhaul. They flooded their districts with cash and heavy media buys to highlight the differences between the candidates.

It wasn't all bad news for the Blue Dogs.

In North Carolina, two Blue Dog Democrats pulled out comfortable wins from opposite ends of the state. Both voted against the health care overhaul, eliminating a key weapon for their opponents.

In the mountains of eastern North Carolina, Rep. Heath Shuler, the Blue Dog whip, burnished his anti-abortion, pro-hunting credentials and worked to distance himself from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. He announced in a debate last week that should Democrats retain power in the House, he'd run for speaker himself before he supported Pelosi again.

In the state's southeast, Rep. Mike McIntyre fended off a stronger than expected challenger, Ilario Pantano. The race drew national attention because of Pantano's history: He was accused of war crimes after killing two unarmed Iraqis as a Marine lieutenant, but he was later cleared of the charges and went on to write a memoir.

The fallout from the Blue Dog losses doesn't bode well for compromise, political experts said.

"The House Democratic caucus has lost its moderate ballast, and it's now as liberal as it has been in modern times. That balances the GOP caucus," said Larry Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "With the infusion of several dozen tea party winners, congressional Republicans are now probably more conservative than they have been in modern times. That should give people a pretty good idea of what the odds are for compromise and major legislation. What the House passes, the Senate will likely kill and vice versa, at least on non-housekeeping bills."


Here are the Blue Dogs that remain:

Altmire, Jason (PA4)
Baca, Joe (CA43)*
Barrow, John (GA12)*
Bishop, Sanford (GA2)
Boren, Dan (OK2)
Boswell, Leonard (IA3)*
Cardoza, Dennis (CA18)*
Chandler, Ben (KY06)
Cooper, Jim (TN5)*
Costa, Jim (CA20)*
Cuellar, Henry (TX28)*
Donnelly, Joe (IN2)*
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ8)*
Harman, Jane (CA36)*
Holden, Tim (PA17)
McIntyre, Mike (NC7)
Matheson, Jim (UT2)
Michaud, Mike (ME2)*
Peterson, Collin (MN7)
Ross, Mike (AR4)
Sanchez, Loretta (CA47)*
Schiff, Adam (CA29)*
Schrader, Kurt (OR5)*
Scott, David (GA13)*
Shuler, Heath (NC11)

Here are the Blue Dogs who lost:

Arcuri, Mike (NY24)
Boyd, Allen (FL2)*
Bright, Bobby (AL2)
Carney, Chris (PA10)*
Childers, Travis (MS1)
Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA3)*
Davis, Lincoln (TN4)
Gordon, Bart (TN6)*
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (SD)
Hill, Baron (IN9)*
Kratovil, Frank (MD1)
Markey, Betsy (CO4)*
Marshall, Jim (GA8)
Minnick, Walt (ID1)
Mitchell, Harry (AZ5)*
Moore, Dennis (KS3)*
Murphy, Patrick (PA8)*
Murphy, Scott (NY20)*
Nye, Glenn (VA2)
Pomeroy, Earl (ND)*
Salazar, John (CO3)*
Space, Zack (OH18)
Taylor, Gene (MS4)
Wilson, Charles (0H6)*

Hitchens Tumor:

Speaking of Heath Schuler

While in Washington, DC, Shuler lives at the C Street facility of The Family, an organization that operates the property as a tax-exempt church and a residence for several congressmen and senators.


The conservative Blue Dog House Democrats, who borrowed heavily from Republican and Tea Party themes in an effort to save their jobs, floundered badly Tuesday. Meanwhile, Progressive Caucus members in contested races had much better success at getting re-elected in spite of some strong right-wing assaults.

Of the 54 seats occupied by members of the Blue Dog coalition, 27 of them were lost to Republicans. (That includes five held by incumbents who either retired or ran for the Senate.) On the other hand, all but three of the much larger group of Progressive Caucus members up for re-election won their seats, including six out of nine caucus members whose races were rated as competitive.

The three Progressive caucus members who lost their seats to Republicans are Reps. Alan Grayson, Fla., Phil Hare, Ill., and John Hall, N.Y. A fourth Progressive Caucus member, Carolyn Cheeks Kirkpatrick of Michigan, was defeated in a primary; her successor, Democrat Hansen Clarke, won 79 percent of the vote Tuesday.

Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, is ahead of a challenge from a Tea Party candidate who received not only a record level of individual contributions to a Republican in that district, but the support of Republican Sen. John McCain, who had his own reasons for going after Grijalva. Grijalva was under siege in part because of his strong opposition to Arizona's SB 1070, the law requiring Arizona residents to prove their citizenship on demand. As of midday Wednesday, he was ahead of challenger Ruth McClung by about 2,500 votes.

In Oregon, Rep. Pete DeFazio triumphed over a conservative whose candidacy was supported by an independent expenditure campaign that DeFazio helped expose and turned into an issue in his campaign. DeFazio was targeted because of his support for Wall Street reform, as was Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the chairman of the House committee responsible for crafting the financial reform bill the House passed. Frank's Republican opponent, Sean D. Bielat, raised more than $1.2 million in direct contributions, far exceeding the total money raised by general election opponents in the previous five elections combined. Bielat's contributors included Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, and a number of venture capital and investment firms.

Reps. Maurice Hinchey, N.Y.; David Loebsack, Iowa; and Chellie Pingree, Maine, also won races that were deemed potential Republican pick-ups.

On the other hand, there were 13 Blue Dog incumbents among the 17 House Democrats identified by National Journal as the "anti-Pelosi caucus," people who vowed not to support Pelosi's continuation as House speaker if Democrats retained House control. Seven of them lose their re-elections


i am assuming this "progressive" caucus includes congressional black caucus whose members get reelected no matter what with an exception here and there . that will make a mess of any stats .
i also have to wonder how progressive is "progressive" caucus with the liberals with their tailes tucked under behind and hiding under this umbrella and in the process more or less gutting the word .
Frank "in the pocket of wall street" as a champion reformer ? being anti-Pelosi as sign of anti-progressive ?
this is lot more of donkey kook aid rather than a sober rational analysis . reminds me a link which was splattered all over the internet by donkeys which listed all the headlines of laws enacted under "hopeandchange" as great accomplishment with out takinga step back and actually looking under the hood that how empty these so called these financial reform / consumer protection aganecy / health care reform etc etc were in reality .


i don't know, i kinda liked grayson...and definitely lament the passing of feingold. the rest were bums...


been out of touch with you wankers for a week but gotta defend '13' , as a physical object, if not as a political theorist.

Not once did I hear either of the ongoing wars mentioned by any Dimbo candidate for any office.

Stone fact is that President Change all but promised to end them both (unless one actually read his print-media interviews and statements), and ended up expanding one and doing exactly the same thing Shrub was doing on the other. THAT is a huge reason why Dimbo voters stayed asleep.

That and no jobs.

Fuck every Democrat. Each and every one.


"I feel pretty good about the Nov 2 election..... bracing 53.3 per cent No on 19.... I didn’t see legalization doing our local ...economy any favors, and I never liked the way the Prop was written anyway.

I voted for Jerry Brown and I felt good about that too...... it was a vote against the repellent Meg Whitman, "

guess who this is ???


California needs Whitman!!! What a tragedy!!

Uncle Alex, how could ja?


this same masked pink celeb wrote this last week :

"... In California it looks very possible that next January Jerry Brown will shake Arnold Schwarzenegger’s hand and return to the job of governing California, a function he last exercised 27 years ago, in 1983. If he prevails this will be a huge shot in the arm for those who believe that against all the evidence, American voters can appreciate a candidate who spends $100 million less than his opponent and didn’t campaign at all through the summer."

way backing to spring 76

"I wended my way to Sacramento to view the governor in his local habitat. Whale song burst from loudspeakers in the street outside his office, in front of which was parked his demure official vehicle—a Plymouth Satellite. Stewart Brand, editor of the New Agers’ bible CoEvolution Quarterly, was at his elbow as an adviser. Tom Hayden was on the line."

after these foppish wrist flicks comes hard analysis masked marvel style:

"By the time of my late spring (76) visit, California had already peaked as the Golden State. Ahead lay accelerating destruction or misuse of the state’s natural assets, starting with water; the ruin of a marvelous system of public education; creation of a vast gulag (twenty-three prisons built since 1984).."
goin good eh ??

"...phalanxes of absurdly overpaid public employees; and paralysis of the legislature in Sacramento. "

hmmmm now comes some
gear loose softening pate revisionism

"You can hang some of the blame around Brown’s neck, though not the seeds of legislative paralysis. Finger Earl Warren for that one. It was Warren’s Supreme Court that issued two decisions in the early 1960s—Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims—ruling that legislators should be apportioned on a “one-person, one-vote” basis. This required state legislatures to reconstitute themselves entirely by the measure of population. Rural counties lost their state senators. Los Angeles and San Francisco swelled in power. "

nostalgia for rotten borough politics

"The reconstituted California Senate of forty—coupled with the two-thirds-majority requirement to pass the budget—permits a faction of fourteen senators to shut down the state once a year, and that is precisely what happens."

"Nor can you blame Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, for the economic earthquakes that began in the late ’70s, when defense and aerospace contracts started to slow (California had been getting one in every five Pentagon dollars during the cold war boom); by the late ’80s as many as 2 million well-paid blue-collar workers and their families had quit Southern California."

where'd this come from ???

"The gulag is a different matter. Governor Brown didn’t start the “lock ’em up forever” boom—but he hopped on to the moving train nimbly enough.

In 1977 the legislature passed a new sentencing law, which Brown swiftly signed. It amended the state’s penal code to declare that punishment, not rehabilitation, was now the goal. The law ended “indeterminate sentencing”—whereby convicts could win significantly shorter sentences by dint of good behavior, self-improvement as assessed by boards including guards and prisoners. Liberals thought this somewhat ad hoc procedure was inherently unfair. Enter, across ensuing years, mandatory completion of prison terms; shriveling of opportunities for convicts to improve themselves; virtual extinction of parole; and open-ended “civil commitment,” with endless extensions of prison time. The result was a swelling population of cons, many of them now entering senility and the Alzheimer years, many of them nonviolent offenders, crammed into tiny cells or using beds stacked three tiers high in prison gyms, all maintained decade after decade at staggering public expense.

Among them are those incarcerated for life under the state’s “three strikes” law, passed in 1994. In 2004 a state initiative to soften three strikes was set to pass handily until Brown, along with several other former California governors, did a last-minute ad blitz that reversed the poll numbers and defeated the proposition. Brown appears to have been the most enthusiastic participant; he flew to LA to do a series of ads with members of heavy metal groups, including Orgy."

happy he's guv again ???

"Brown failed to fight the Prop 13 initiative effectively, though this prototypical Tea Party rebellion was probably unstoppable."

ineffective at stopping the unstoppable

now that's a stand alone specimen
softened pate syndrome eh ???

"When Prop 13 passed in 1978, the local governments that had already lost all power in the State Senate also lost any ability to raise money by increasing property taxes. "

localism and tax autonomy marvelous
Rx for more practical progressive politics

"Since then the only way to get dollars for education has been to go to Sacramento and beg or dream up another bond issue to place on the ballot. "
so education is better funded out of
local real estate taxes eh ??
err and worse borrowing is bad funding for hu cap building

"These bond issues can pass only with support from public employees—especially police, prison guards and firemen, uniting with teachers, nurses, etc.—and so the never-ending upward spiral of public employee salaries and pensions has no discernible limits."

deliriously silly

"... It’s hard to be absolute about Jerry, though his stint as mayor of Oakland had very unattractive features. "
squashy enough for ya ???

"His tilt at Clinton in ’92 was most enjoyable, not least for the fun I had ...defended Brown’s flat-tax proposal in the Wall Street Journal, bringing down the wrath of the liberal nonprofit tax reform groups, which ardently defended the so-called “progressivity” of our existing tax code! "
more politics
as jolly good parlor sport
filled with dilettante wonking jousts

"He’s actually endorsed the appalling Peripheral Canal."

bing bang bing

California’s problems are well beyond the curative powers of any one governor. ... So if he wins in November, there’s no need to nourish foolish hopes. I guess it’s Jerry’s last hurrah. I give him a decorous cheer, if only as homage to the ’70s, when politics were a lot more fun and more optimistic than they are now. "
you carve that last passage for yourself

this man wants fidel in a rubber room ??

i suggest we gat some femme fatale
to lure him back
to his ancestoral keep in

so we can sling the bolt shut
after him and keeep it sling shut
a final make shift
--- if a bit grand ---
for this champion of the inmate constituency

Clapham Omnibus:

No hopey, You oughta put all that exegesis into English and send it direct to AC. Bet he'd make you look silly if he responded, but you wouldn't realize it. Rest of us would get a laugh though.



Michael Dawson:

Not once did I hear either of the ongoing wars mentioned by any Dimbo candidate for any office....

But Patty Murray's ad ran 4,000,000,000 times! Y'know the one about how much she looooooooves veterans and wants to take care of them but her nasty nasty opponent doesn't!!

And what better way to show one's fondness for our vets by making more and more and more vets each and every single bingle dayyyyy!!

While the rest of us get shit, of course. Because why should anyone care about us if we haven't been amusing ourselves by blowing more holes in foreigners, hmmmm?


"Bet he'd make you look silly if he responded, but you wouldn't realize it. Rest of us would get a laugh though."

here fortunately i have only to deal
with u clap ....a patroclus unprepared to try on achilles armour
and sally forth on his own

Clapham Omnibus:

Big frog terrorizes small pond. Get Smith to go between. He claims to have had the man's ear once upon a.

Always amused, yrs faithfully, Clap

It was Warren’s Supreme Court that issued two decisions in the early 1960s—Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims—ruling that legislators should be apportioned on a “one-person, one-vote” basis

WTF is that pap about Baker v Carr being about one man, one vote?

Who wrote that shit?

Fucking moron. Read it for your own fucking moronic self: (for those too lazy to spend 3 years reading judicial opinions and getting tested on one's obeisance to the supremacy of the judiciary)

Intervening and sidestepping the ban on review of political Qs, to reign supreme over legislative reapportionment -- that, my good fucking eedjit, is not "one man, one vote".

I suppose the quoted statement might be sarcastic in attributing the democratic impulse to Baker v Carr. But then to be good sarcasm the audience would need to know the real impact of Baker v Carr and the real forces driving it. And I'm afraid the audience for whom that's the starting point of the analysis is very, very small. Perhaps 1% of the population? 3%?

Might could be a swell secret handshake, I guess.


Alex Cockburn, with this week's weekend edition has brought be round to OP's position. Particularly sickening is his gloating over voting against Prop 19.

What an unserious asswipe.


President Change all but promised to end them [the wars] both

I agree with your verdict, Michael, but I think this is untrue. I recall Obummer promising to widen the war in Afghanistan before he was a elected, with the usual nonsense about how Iraq had derailed the importance of that effort.


So what was the final verdict on the losses of the Blue Dog dems? Was it a good thing or a bad thing? To my ear, it is sharp mystery, or a warning shot that the fundamentalist right is even more fundamentalist than we thought.

Did I correctly hear OP call Blue Dogs "moderates"? If so, this could only mean, somehow, more believable and reliable, than the posturing right and left wings on either side of them.

Jerry now looks like a cantankerous version of his Dad, and what can be expected of someone who's spent his life in politics? But I always have a soft spot for someone who dated Linda Rondstadt IN HER PRIME!!


To my ear, it is sharp mystery, or a warning shot that the fundamentalist right is even more fundamentalist than we thought.

I think the election results are very self-explanatory. Conservatives prefer to elect conservative Republicans over conservative Democrats. Non-conservatives prefer to stay home when those are the choices. In general, the electorate voted in protest, more than anything else to repudiate this hideous president and his party. It's the same old, same old.

I had hoped that finally, the dramatic dashing of high hopes by Obama and Co, who even went so far as to insult the base publicly before the election, would have finally cured the last-remaining Obamaphiles of battered liberal syndrome,. But alas, what greeted me on Facebook the following day was a lot of liberal agony over how poorly the Dems communicate and market themselves along with a link to an article from the LA Times about how Obama 'lost his voice' and must rediscover it.

I can't take being around these people anymore, even in the superficial passing that Facebook provides. I killed my account the day after the election.


Big cheer goes up in the nosebleed seats of the peanut gallery for OP's takedown of former patron saint of SMBiVA, AC.

What got to me, in the original, is the choice phrase: "phalanxes of absurdly overpaid public employees." Is that a pink conceit, or did that come from his great and good friend and patron Ron Unz, of American Sectator fame? Because, after all, it is those damned over-paid PUBLIC employees that caused the financial meltdown of '08, make the wars in Afghaistan and Yemen and Somalia, run private health care into a trillion-dollar extortion racket - oh, how the sight of those cracker-snatching public employees must have galled the expatriate and his good friends in the militia movement. No concerns about the "phalanxes of absurdly overpaid PRIVATE CEO's and PRIVATE hedge fund criminals" need be mentioned here, because, as Jon Stewart says, it is the fourteen sort-of Marxists and the "phalanxes of absurdly over-paid public employees" who are subverting our cherished Constitution, so let's let right be left and left be right!

...I can't take being around these people anymore, even in the superficial passing that Facebook provides. I killed my account the day after the election.

Facebook sucks anyway, miguel. You're better off without it.


Facebook sucks anyway, miguel. You're better off without it.

I agree, totally. The post-election bullshit was only the tipping point for me. I had been primed to bail days before.

I find the whole social networking thing interesting and wonder if it could ever be done well. I couldn't tell if it was Facebook or my 'Friends' that I decided I couldn't stand anymore. I just knew the madness had to end.

...I find the whole social networking thing interesting and wonder if it could ever be done well...

Possibly. I'm happy enough just to use email for that purpose, personally.

The trouble with Facebook, aside from the privacy issues, is that its main function is to give the average person all the disadvantages of being a celeb with none of the perks. We're always onstage, and we don't even get any material compensation for it. The feeling of "ick" was and is so strong for me that I never did join up.



The idea that Facebook is a simulacrum of celebrity had never occurred to me. I think that's why some people embrace it so fervently. For them, the main perk of celebrity IS attention. So you see people emerge who get a certain star status in their circle of, say, 1000 'friends'. Like you, I don't want to be onstage and I am not fond of how people who like the stage behave when they're 'on' either, so, yeah, there is definitely a large 'ick' factor that all traces back to how public all the interactions are.

I guess the thing I like about it is that it provides a very feature-rich environment for communicating with many people at one time and I was also made privy to the artistry of everyday folks (mainly in the form of humor and photography) on a more regular basis than my normal interactions provide.

I also feel that there's gotta be some potential there for political organizing but it sure doesn't seem like anyone wants to go that route. I guess every circle differs, but it seemed to me that there is a relentless cheeriness that gets in the way of anything resembling serious discussion, to say nothing of all the distractions that impede sustaining a discussion.


I still read books, and have political arguments in bars, so why be on Facebook? But if Facebook is just a hapless form of virtual community, what about blogging? Don't most of the remarks that the last three commenters made also apply to commenting here? I'm deeply convinced that spending more than 1/2 hour a day on the internet is a form of self-immolation, yet I love the few sites I visit because otherwise I don't hear people expressing views on life like my own. But the question remains, are we doing anything constructive by talking here, or are we just, in the immortant words of Chris Matthews, being "pajama-hadeen."


take the no pajama pledge today.


But the question remains, are we doing anything constructive by talking here, or are we just, in the immortant words of Chris Matthews, being "pajama-hadeen."

I don't think anyone would claim that blogs aren't constructive. Certainly they act as a correction to the bullshit churned out by the MSM. And they also provide a reality check for people who feel they are surrounded on all sides by zaniness and conformity.

However, from the standpoint of movement politics, I think most of the participants get diminishing returns from continuing to engage online rather than doing something outside their homes. I mean how much proof do you need that Digby or TBogg are assholes, and Obama is a war-happy whore?

The avenues of political engagement are so few in our society that one really doesn't need to get knee-deep in theory over and over again to decide first of all, whether or not there is any point in engaging in conventional political terms at all, and two, if you have decided to engage, figuring out where to do so.

I am speaking purely from the standpoint of political value, not the merits as art and entertainment.

Though I hardly live it, I think Westerby's conclusion that past a certain fairly restrictive point, hanging out online is self-destructive and doesn't really do the folks around you much good either, unless you're some sort of social menace when you're not attached to a computer.


"unless you're some sort of social menace when you're not attached to a computer"

involuntary restriction to your key board in a confining cubicle
is the career sentence of most internet bats

hanging from the rafters of a blog site passes the wage and salary hours eh ??


those who roam the net in the wee hours
are another breed
of flying mouse all together


this same masked pink celeb wrote this last week :

"... In California it looks very possible that next January Jerry Brown will shake Arnold Schwarzenegger’s hand and return to the job of governing California, a function he last exercised 27 years ago, in 1983.

I can't find this item on the Counterpunch site. Anybody got a link?


Turfed out or not, embedded in the yuck-o realm of Blue Dog/DLC lawyer-lobbyists or not, I can't take my eyes off Ms. Herseth-Sandlin. That's a fab image with her sporting weary eye-bags, by the way... much better than other campaign propaganda schmaltz pictures of her online, featuring her in the role of the wholesome farmgirl next door. As far as white women go, she ranks behind only the delicious Cindy Wilson of the B-52's, circa 1978-1986 (more or less).

Now, as you were...


Glue and I clearly have something in common. I too found the eyes and their surrounding territory irresistible.

Grayson, on the other hand -- what an obviously chicanerous plug-ugly.


couldn't agree more about H-S
i saw it rrying to find out what she looked like and ...

but alas does she really look like that ??

i think its just a miracle candid snap

Rupert Fort:

Few surveyors can demonstrate similar skills in writing, and even less can assure its quality. Best work I've seen by far! Your analytical essay is a profound one. I swear it cost a major brain work.

Post a comment

Note also that comments with three or more links may be held for "moderation" -- a strange term to apply to the ghost in this blog's machine. Seems to be a hard-coded limitation of the blog software, unfortunately.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on Wednesday November 3, 2010 07:25 PM.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31