What’s Martin Peretz Really On About?
Martin Peretz makes the case to the readers of the most reactionary newspaper editorial page on Earth that not only is Joe Lieberman a not-so-secret Republican, but the forces that push Lieberman’s opponent, Ned Lamont, represent everything that WSJ types have classically detested.
‘Marty Peretz’ is often a relevant subject/verb pairing
[Lamont] is a middle-aged patrician, seeking office de haut en bas, and almost entirely because he can. It’s really quite remarkable how someone like Ned Lamont, from the stock of Morgan partner Thomas Lamont and that most high-born American Stalinist, Corliss Lamont, still sends a chill of “having arrived” up the spines of his suburban supporters simply by asking them to support him. Superficially, one may think of those who thought they were already middle class just by being enthusiasts of Franklin Roosevelt, who descended from the Hudson River Dutch aristocracy. But when FDR ran for, and was elected, president in 1932, he had already been a state senator, assistant secretary of the Navy and governor of New York. He had demonstrated abilities.
On one level here Marty could be describing G.W. Bush rather than Lamont — a silver spooned, inexperienced politico who assumes he can buy an election. But everyone knows the WSJ has no problem with people who can buy elections, thus Marty’s grace notes to his general riff here: Lamont is not like G.W. Bush because Lamont is a class-traitor, descended from other class-traitors.
So what we have in this candidacy is someone, with no public record to speak of but with perhaps a quarter of a billion dollars to his name, who wants to be a senator. Mr. Lamont has almost no experience in public life. He was a cable television entrepreneur, a run-of-the-mill contemporary commercant with unusually easy access to capital.
Yes, there’s a nasty irony in what Peretz is trying to peddle here. But no contradiction. We must remember Peretz’s audience: the largely WASP ruling class which to a man knows the code (Marty’s style is contagious) in which Peretz speaks. This audience has exactly zero problem with massive, lazy, inherited wealth. But it is not above projecting its own sins on another, if the political situation is desperate enough. The peons and wannabes who read the WSJ will credulously appreciate Marty’s cynical populism, while the class for and by whom the Journal is actually printed is acutely reminded of Lamont’s class-treason.
Peace candidates know only one thing, and that is why people vote for them. I know the type well.
[snip]
One was even nominated for president in 1972. George McGovern, a morally imperious isolationist with fellow-traveling habits, never could shake the altogether accurate analogies with Henry Wallace. (Wallace was the slightly dopey vice president, dropped from the ticket by FDR in 1944, who ran for president on the Progressive Party ticket, a creation of Stalin’s agents in the U.S.) Mr. McGovern’s trouncing by Richard Nixon, a reprobate president if we ever had one, augured the recessional–if not quite the collapse–of such Democratic politics, which insisted our enemy in the Cold War was not the Soviets but us.
This is neatly done; Marty is a grade-A apparatchik. Henry Wallace = George McGovern = Ned Lamont. Thus at the deepest levels Lamont is traitor to his class: a communist America-hater.
It was then that people like Joe Lieberman emerged, muscular on defense, assertive in foreign policy, genuinely liberal on social and economic matters, but not doctrinaire on regulatory issues. He had marched for civil rights and is committed to an equal opportunity agenda with equal opportunity results. He has qualms about affirmative action.
In contrast, Marty demonstrates that Lieberman is not only his man, but should be the man of the fiercely reactionary Journal readership. Notice Marty’s emphases on certain parts of Lieberman’s record and character. It is not accidental that Peretz is careful to highlight Lieberman’s “pragmatism” on business regulation and “qualms” about affirmative action. Smarty Marty knows his audience here well.
The blogosphere Democrats, whose victory Mr. Lamont’s will be if Mr. Lamont wins, have made Iraq the litmus test for incumbents. There are many reasonable, and even correct, reproofs that one may have for the conduct of the war. They are, to be sure, all retrospective. But one fault cannot be attributed to the U.S., and that is that we are on the wrong side. We are at war in a just cause, to protect the vulnerable masses of the country from the helter-skelter ideological and religious mass-murderers in their midst.
You knew that was coming; Peretz can’t resist. A Lamont victory, for Marty, means the forces of surrender win. Thus painting Lamont as a traitor to his class, Peretz goes the extra step of painting Lamont’s supporters as traitors to their nation.
If Mr. Lieberman goes down, the thought-enforcers of the left will target other centrists as if the center was the locus of a terrible heresy
Ahh, the “purge” factor, a nice bit of projection from yet another “centrist” who has spent the better part of the last twenty years trying to purge the Left not only from the Democratic Party but from the whole American body politic.
Finally, the contest in Connecticut tomorrow is about two views of the world. Mr. Lamont’s view is that there are very few antagonists whom we cannot mollify or conciliate. Let’s call this process by its correct name: appeasement.
Of course. The ultimate stab-in-the-back word in Marty’s lexicon.
Almost every Democrat feels obliged to offer fraternal solidarity to Israel, and Mr. Lamont is no exception. But here, too, he blithely assumes that the Palestinians could be easily conciliated. All that it would have needed was President Bush’s attention. Mr. Lamont has repeated the accusation, disproved by the “road map” and Ariel Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza, that Mr. Bush paid little or even no attention to the festering conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
This is the subject to which Peretz always reverts and on which he is …well, most insane (which is really saying something). Actually, on the subject of Israel Lamont is par for both party’s courses, which means he’s almost pro-Israel to Lieberman’s level, though both fall far short of Peretz’s own calculus on the matter, Marty feeling as he does that the Palestinians, like all Arabs, are vermin.
The Lamont ascendancy, if that is what it is, means nothing other than that the left is trying, and in places succeeding, to take back the Democratic Party. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters have stumped for Mr. Lamont.
Now Marty reaches crescendo. His version of Lamont is a class-traitor, cynically fellow-travelling with pro-terrorist commie appeasers. But who could Lamont befriend worse than that in the eyes of WSJites? Poor Americans — poor, black Americans. Thus Marty makes his final plea, hoping to slap the ruling class to consciousness by saying: Lamont’s making friends with them; guard your wallets!
Is Marty’s coded bigotry here cynical or sincere? I have an idea. Here’s a passage from Eric Alterman’s What Liberal Media?:
Peretz’s distaste for dark-skinned foriegners appears to extend well beyond the Palestinians. In a 1982 interview with the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, Peretz explained to a reporter that Israel needed to turn the Palestinians “into just another crushed nation, like the Kurds or the Afghans” and thereby making their problem “boring.”…. [Michael] Kelly also shared Peretz’s animus toward affirmative action, which interviewers for the job [of The New Republic‘s editor — Peretz owns the magazine] had been led to understand was an a priori condition for hiring. Few if any people of color worked at the magazine in editorial positions under Peretz’s ownership, and Washington Post publisher Donald Graham quipped that an appropriate slogan for the magazine might be: “Looking for a qualified African-American for over seventy years.”
And of course Peretz published Andrew Sullivan’s cheery endorsement of Charles Murray’s baroquely racist The Bell Curve, and TNR also — and for far too long, even by Marty’s and Sully’s standards — featured the writing of dedicated race-baiter (and plagiarist) Ruth Shalit.
This is the face of Lieberman’s fiercest partisans. Vote Lamont.
That phrase “muscular on defense” is insidious. What the hell does it signify? It assumes that War equals Defense, that defense is healthy and virtuous for a nation to aspire to. Of everything he wrote describing Lieberman, that phrase creeps me out the most. I guess I don’t like the over “masculinity” of the language and the implicit approval a la “let Lieberman help Big Papa Bush protect you.” What he’s saying with “muscular on defense” could also be phrased in other ways to give different effects–hawkish, reactionary, simple-minded….
p.s. I should have re-read before posting. In saying, “that defense is healthy and virtuous,” I actually agree with that, but the “defense” I disagree with is the brand espoused by Lieberman and the admin, meaning “git ’em before they git us. Show them sandflies who they’re messin’ with.”
Maybe a Lamont win in the primary today will be the turning point by which the Democratic Party finally begins breaking free of the Shrum-DLC Axis of Milquetoast that has doomed the party to humiliation for so many years now. I think what really scares Peretz is that if Lieberman loses, it will conclusively disprove his theory that to win, Democrats need to be as much like Republicans as possible.
On the one hand I think it’s ritahdid that the nation’s pundit class is taking one election — one primary election, no less — and making it into such an epic clash of civilizations. But on the other hand, the hype will be worth it if Lamont puts Lieberman away and Democrats everywhere wake up and realize a) Democrats can be Democrats again; b) opposing the war is not actually viewed as a horrible thing by the majority of Americans; and c) you are under no obligation to kowtow to the wishes of the inside-the-Beltway punditocracy, given that they have been wrong about pretty much every f’ing thing since about the middle of 2002 or so.
“Mr. Lamont has almost no experience in public life. ”
Wasn’t this quality supposed to be a virtue, back in the ‘term limits” 90’s?
Peretz is one of the more contemptible assholes on the planet. I particularly like his slagging of McGovern — a guy he supported at the time as “morally imperious isolationist with fellow-traveling habits”.
George McGovern had seen his share of war, even as he served with distinction. Moreover, he was right on the issues of his day. Finally, he is, by all accounts a decent man. Peretz, a hollow neocon shill, can claim none of these things.
I agree that only a rich man (or woman) can start at the top, though. Rich people like Jim Oberweis (IL) and H Clinton run for Senate before anything else, and I think it’s unseemly, as though their money means they don’t have to pay any dues/learn the job first. However, in Ned Lamont’s case, who else could run against Lieberman, a high-profile incumbent? He’s running against him on principle, for particular reasons. So I have no patience with this business of “no experience” as applied to Lamont, either. Won’t wash.
I cancelled my TNR subscription three years ago during their gushing embrace of Operation Awesome Kickass!â„¢ Every now and then, I’ll see a piece on domestic politics by someone I like, say, Jon Chait or Franklin Foer, and start to miss the magazine. Then, sure enough, Marty Peretz comes along and reminds me why I gave up on Joe Lieberman Weekly in the first place. Pfffft.
Lucy’s got a great point.
In the last 60 years or so, the greatest contributions to America’s security has een aiding the self interest of other nations; meaning becoming trading partners, and helping in reasonable development aims, and so on.
As mikey said in another thread, wars have always made things worse.
In this era, what is the value of military defense? There are no nations who are insane enough to actually attack America; and small scale insurgencies are impossible to address with large scale military actions, as Iraq and Israel are so aptly demonstrating.
All this stupid military flexing is so much BS, and America is the last ones on the planet to realize it. Every other country, especially India and China, are more than happy to let us squander our wealth and capacities on unused, and unusable, military gadgetry that is designed for last century’s war.
But then, the WSJ editorial page has always been a little peek into an alternate universe of insanity.
“Mr. Lamont has almost no experience in public life. �
Wasn’t this quality supposed to be a virtue, back in the ‘term limits� 90’s?
Only If You’re A Republican. Or a Bush.
Thanks for unpacking this screed. Here’s hoping the people of Connecticut (and the US Senate) can be rid of WF Buckley’s houseboy.
This really makes clear that we need more partisanship, not less, in one clear sense: while it would be useful to have some collegiality in congress, electing a guy who is clearly in thrall to the ideology of your loyal opposition makes no sense. Talk about fellow-travelers: sheesh. That image of Lieberman sitting at a table with Kay Bailey Hutchinson as Buckley calls him his favorite Democrat is galling: shades of Norquist and that stupid neutered housepets crack of his.
And as for this Peretz guy: the old Irish saying — god doesn’t care that much for money, look at the people he gives it to — sums it up nicely.
“Rich people like Jim Oberweis (IL) and H Clinton run for Senate before anything else, and I think it’s unseemly, as though their money means they don’t have to pay any dues/learn the job first.”
LOL, you saying H. Clinton hasn’t paid any political dues? She’s been in politics with B. Clinton her whole life, and has probably recieved more right wing bile than any person who ever lived.
Let’s also not let Peretz get away with his redbaiting of historical figures:
Corliss Lamont, though certainly a fellow traveler in the 1930s and a socialist throughout his life, was never in any meaningful sense a “Stalinist,” never joined the CP, and wrote a pamphlet entitled “Why I Am Not A Communist” in the 1950s.
And Henry Wallace cannot simply be dismissed as “slightly dopey.” As VP he gave a politically significant left-liberal spin to the meaning of the war effort in his Century of the Common Man speech. And earlier in life he was a truly significant agronomist and agribusinessman. He conducted important experiments with high yield corn strains and founded the corporation that would become Pioneer Hi-Bred. These last achievements have, at the very least, proven to be something of a mixed bag for our economy and environment. But they were not the product of a “slightly dopey” man.
I don’t care what contribution he might have made to social progress, or where he stands on domestic social issues like abortion and health care. Joe Lieberman is a traitor of the worst kind – a traitor to his own humanity. I’m utterly convinced that he had to put his conscience in his back pocket and hold his nose to support this stupid, cruel, illegal war, and that he did so strictly for polictical advantage. And, as these behaviors are wont to do, it bit him in the ass. He can’t back down now without looking ridiculous, and yet he’s stuck with the realization that he bet it all on the lunatics running the asylum, and it’s all turned to ashes now. Like the burned out high roller who bets his last dollar and his mortgage on one last roll of the dice, he needs to slink off to an alley somewhere, set up a cardboard box, open a bottle, and settle into a greying silence. He cynically guessed, and he guessed wrong. We’re through with you, Joe, our party doesn’t need you, and sadly, neither does theirs…
mikey
Oh man, I can’t wait to see the steam come out of Peretz’ class-baiting little red ears when Leaverman gets hit in the ass with the door. After Marty fires his maid and kicks his dog, he’ll be scratching out petulant odes to the squandered promise of America’s lost authoritarianism all month.
Maybe a little Anti-Flag is what Marty needs to get himself worked into the mood?
Bloggofascist, I meant she had never held elective office before, which is the sort of experience I believe Peretz was extolling (though Lamont held local offices).
‘a morally imperious isolationist with fellow-traveling habits’
Jeez, get off your fucking high-horse you knob.
Nitpicking Lucy’s earlier post (yes, I know you responded toBloggo, but I think my point is valid) :
“Rich people….H Clinton run for Senate ”
Hillary is rich in name recognition, connections, and political campaign funds, but she is not, nor is Bill, rich in personal wealth. People forget, now that they are able to earn more personally, but Bill and Hill did not have a lot of financial assets when they moved into the White House – certainly not to compare to the Bushes.
As a matter of fact, lumping Hillary into the category of millionaire candidates is simply inappropriate. However you feel about her, she is the opposite of what Peretz meant, the sort of rich-boy type who buys his way into office.
And, yes, she’s never run for election before, but her strength was political connections and experience in both campaigning and in policy, which, again – doesn’t fit Peretz’ points.
“Do you fellows mind if I travel with you? It is one of my habits!”
George McGovern, 1972.
‘tardo–
Beautifully done. And didja note that the “reproofs” (Marty to self: Why CAN’T I be the somewhat-less-reactionary Bill Buckley?) are “all retrospective”? What, to the extent this means anything, can it mean?
That “no one” was against the Iraq war at the start? That the plan was sound but the (understandably) overconfident administration executed it poorly? That the reproofs are Monday-morning quarterbacking and don’t really matter, a topic for soreheads and hate-America traitors?
Somebody hit this guy with a salami so we can get on with our lives.
The thing that was most, um, impressive about this editorial to me was the red-baiting. “Fellow traveling habits,” “Stalin’s agents in the U.S.,” etc.
I’m almost thirty – just for reference, that means that the Berlin Wall fell when I was still in elementary school. The Great Red Menace had whimpered itself entirely to peices before I got to highschool. This neoMcCarthyite ploy just strikes me as hopelessly, neurotically, pathetically anachronistic. In fact, I’m “young” enough that the coded language here renders the argument of the editorial almost entirely senseless: are we really supposed to fear Ned Chamberlain Lamont, limosine liberal and friend of darkies everywhere, bringing down the Democratic Party by reintroducing into the body politic the pathogen of “Leftism?” GASP!
I’m just wondering how deferential Lieberman’s current defenders were to his record of service in those heady “Sore/Loserman” days of late 2000.
I like the notion that a win for someone who is against the war is a win for only fringe extremist thought police bloggers. Because they’re the only ones opposed to the war these days. I’m almost positive of that.
On the other hand, he does kind of have a point–everybody I know who voted for Bush in 2000 and especially 2004 was absolutely certain he shared their views on things like banning landmines and raising the minimum wage. Pools seem to bear that out, that I didn’t just end up in a thicket of ignorant dumbasses. So Joe winning despite the majority of the voters disagreeing with his position wouldn’t be especially shocking.
I caught that pools/polls thing just as I hit submit. Weird how often I do that double letter thing with migraines. Any other typos I didn’t notice. Pretend it’s a lackluster Where’s Waldo game.
Pretend it’s a lackluster Where’s Waldo game.
As opposed to the more Lusterous Where’s Waldo games…
mikey
Martin Peretz is a racist?
“wars have always made things worse”
__________________
Exactly. We should never have gone to war against Japan and Germany.
It only made things worse. Look at them today; complete basket cases.
The millionaire elitist Ned Lamont is the proof of the Democrat Party’s inner anti-semitism.
Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, and Blanche Lincoln have the same kind of views as Lieberman, and none of them get targeted.
Fuck off, Wang Chung. Nobody wants to have fun tonight; at least, not your kinda fun, which is that every foriegn policy problem this country ever experiences is just like WW2.
Jose–
We did not choose to go to war against Germany and Japan. They declared war on us.
Exactly. We should never have gone to war against Japan and Germany. It only made things worse. Look at them today; complete basket cases.
Ooh, irony. So if war does solve everything, then Germany and Japan were fully morally justified in attacking Poland, France, England and the United States. Oh, and killing all those Joos.
Thanks Retardo. You beat me to it.
“millionaire elitist” Heh. Especially funny coming from the Party Of Bush. Let me know when you mastered avoiding non sequitur arguments, Ruppert.
Dear Mr. Ruppert:
I await with breathless anticipation your impassioned defense of Lincoln Chafee and excoriation of the Republican party for its shameless attempt at an ideological purge.
Hugs and kisses,
t.
Jose–
We did not choose to go to war against Germany and Japan. They declared war on us.
And they had their countries leveled, millions of their citizens killed, and many other countries (UK, France, Italy etc) suffered horribly. America lost 600,000 young men, and spent, in todays dollars, an incomprehensible sum. Yeah, tell me again how well that war worked out, you stupid asshat!!
mikey
Next on Fox News: We dsicuss how those effete, New York intellectual types are destroying the cultural values of this Christian nation.
Lincoln Chafee is being targeted because he’s one of the most liberal Senators in the Senate.
Joe Lieberman votes with the Democrats 80% of the time, and is still targeted for no good reason.
Gary Ruppert said,
August 8, 2006 at 19:50
The millionaire elitist Ned Lamont is the proof of the Democrat Party’s inner anti-semitism.
Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, and Blanche Lincoln have the same kind of views as Lieberman, and none of them get targeted.
Of those, only Ben Nelson is up for reelection this year, which tells me you’ve missed the point.
And George Soros will be proud that all his little Sorosbots executed a DoS attack on Joe Lieberman’s website
No way, Jose:
Exactly. We should never have gone to war against Japan and Germany.
Interesting tidbit: The US declared war on Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Germany, as ally to Japan, then declared war on the US.
It only made things worse. Look at them today; complete basket cases.
So you’re saying that Japan and Germany wouldn’t have turned out so civilized if it weren’t for the US? I hate to tell you this, Jose, but 20 million Russians died defeating the Nazis. “We� didn’t prevent the spread of Nazi atrocity, or destroy the heart of it; other European countries did. And “we� didn’t have any choice but to fight Japan.
That isn’t to say the US didn’t belong in WW2, but simply that invoking it in an attempt to disprove someone else’s point is kinda stupid: I think you should tip toe back through your history book and examine the interconnection between the First World War and the Second.
The former played a big part in igniting the latter. In fact, you could almost say WW1 made things….worse?
“He’s (Ned) running against him on principle, for particular reasons.”
______________
Yes, the “particular reason” is that he wants to play at being a United States Senator for six years. After that, he may try something else, like move to Bermuda.
Ned is “running on principle?” Are you serious? And what “principle” is that? Anti-War?
In a couple of years, when the war in Iraq is over and most of our troops are home, there will still be a war on terror, because there will still be Islamic Nazis like al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Ahmadinejad and the one hundred million Muslims world-wide who support them, and you will be stuck with four more years of Ned the Pacifist, who would sit down with Charles Manson and offer him a talking cure.
It’s sad and hilarious how focused on George Soros the right wing is. Does anyone here ever even think about him? It’s so obvious that the name is a potent signifier for them, but how can they even keep up the pretense, without blushing, that Soros has something to do with day-to-day political life?
I suppose war was the answer, but not to the question as the Nazis would have posed it.
Ned the Empty Suit is going to be the Senator from DailyKos.
His victory will offer a lot of aid and comfort to our enemies as well.
If you knew anything, Jose, you wouldn’t even bother with your “anti-war” guess.
And you’re 3 years behind the times with that “give the terrorists therapy” talking point.
how can they even keep up the pretense, without blushing, that Soros has something to do with day-to-day political life?
Soros funds Atrios, Media Matters, Think Progress, Daily Kos, and Glenn Greenwald
Regarding whether Peretz is a racist – I dunno, and I’m certainly inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt since tarring someone as a racist is easy to do and very hard to overcome. But really, he sure plays a racist well in this editorial. It’s a fairly solid inference from Peretz’ equation of “the left = bad = Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters” (e.g. three prominent black politicians who stumped for Lamont) to “Marty Peretz = racist.” Not to mention the historical baggage of the rhetorical combination of red-/race-baiting Peretz is dealing in here: it’s pretty much exactly the language of the Klan during the civil rights era (minus the anti-Semitism).
Maybe, as he seems to be saying pretty strongly here, Peretz just pines for the pre-civil rights era Democratic party – e.g. before “the left” came and ruined the party with their dubious notions of racial and economic equality – and the racism implied by his language is only an unintended anachronism? That is, maybe he’s not so much a racist as just too damn old to know any better.
I know he funds things, Gary, though I won’t take your word for it that those are the particular entities he funds. My point is that people like me don’t think of him more than once a year, whereas he is eternally on the mind of right-wingers. Proving that we do not get our marching orders from Soros, or anyone for that matter, but you like to think we do.
Sweet, sweet Gary, the point is that people vote for who they want to vote for(this is how democracy often works), and not voting for Lieberman doesn’t make it a purge, or antisemitic, or any other right-wing bullshit strawman, just like not voting for Chafee is not a purge. And as Lieberman looks like he’s going to lose, and Chafee looks like he’s not (and by a hefty margin), it looks like what the voters *don’t* want is those they perceive as right-leaning Bush supporters.
here will still be a war on terror, because there will still be Islamic Nazis like al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Ahmadinejad and the one hundred million Muslims world-wide who support them
Once AGAIN, Jose, let me remind you this is America. None of those people/organizations you listed are ANY threat to America. Can they kill some Americans? Sure. But your whole “turn America into an islamic republic and install Sharia law” line of bullshit is just stupid. They cannot defeat America, and you really shouldn’t be so scared of them…
mikey
Right Wing Talking Points for Dummies
1. Evil = Anything we don’t like
2. We don’t like Liberals
3. Liberals = Evil
4. We don’t like Nazis
5. Nazis = Evil
6. Liberals = Nazis
7. We don’t like Hezbollah
8. Hezbollah = Evil
9. Hezbollah = Liberals
I don’t think Retardo is implying that Peretz is a racist; Retardo is saying that Peretz is using race-baiting language that any reader who happens to be racist will respond to like a dog whistle.
Does that mean Pretz is a racist? Not necessarily. Does it mean he’s willing to use metaphors and analogies that mean more to racist reader than non-racist readers? You betcha!
The thing that’s funny about the Soros obsession is that it has to completely ignore the sources of rightwing funding in order to remain even marginally coherent – Scafie, Coors, Etc., Etc. You think being a right wing pundit or think tank in this country has ever been a monetarily winning proposition in some putative free market of opinion? Bullshit.
“Helter-skelter ideology”? Yeah, someone’s still pissed about the 60s.
The thing that’s funny about the Soros obsession is that it has to completely ignore the sources of rightwing funding in order to remain even marginally coherent – Scafie, Coors, Etc., Etc.
More than that, cs. It’s an example of one of Rove’s favorite tactics: accusing your opponent loudly and repeatedly of that which you are doing yourself, thus making any similar accusations from your opponent seem like copycat whining.
Gary Gary, he’s so harry
Twaddles on like a dromedary
From Limbaugh’s ass
To Gary’s lips
These are all of Rupert’s quips.
He comes not to save the day
But to trip all in is way
Tainted spam is what he serves
Damn! he has a lot of nerve
So ignore this mindless oaf
He’s only working with half a loaf.
“Helter-skelter ideology�? Yeah, someone’s still pissed about the 60s.
Only like the entire Republican party. Believe me, I saw it happen with my once-upon-a-time Democrat father, who is now a conservative Republican (he wouldn’t admit it, but that’s who he agrees with and votes for). He turned in the 1990s, and thereafter all I heard was “hippies, 1960s, baby boomers, Clinton, Me Generation,” bla blah blah. That’s who ruined America, don’t you know. The raison d’etre of the conservatives is undoing the 60s. Not the civil rights movement (in my father’s case, at least–he’s sane in that regard) but the whole crazy free-love, let’s all talk about our feelings, I’m-OK-you’re-OK thing. Brrr! Men don’t hug! Sex is bad! Don’t make me feel things!
BenA –
I guess I just don’t understand how being funded by Soros is supposed to be an indictment of anyone. I mean, I guess it plays well with the tinfoil hat crowd – but as a criticism advanced among adults? C’mon. Looking into the sources of Republican funding and what that funding is explicitly intended to accomplish is like spelunking an outhouse.
Oh, and Lieberman’s site down due to a Sorosian DoS? Sadly, nope
Am I the only one here who thinks the credit for Lamont’s (apparent) success because of the left-wing blogosphere is way overblown? Is the average CT Democratic voter influenced blog discussions? Or could it be that Lieberman, despite being well respected by a significant portion of voters, and intimidating would-be Democratic opponents with a war chest built from traditional Republican funding sources simply doesn’t represent the majority of his constituency anymore? This race didn’t play prominently on left leaning blogs until after Lieberman speculated he might run as an independent, i.e. after Lamont was within a chance of victory in the primary.
Peretz arguments play to idea that Lamont represents the nationally controlled, out-of-touch liberal on the fringe. That’s why he invokes the names of McGovern or Wallace. Lieberman is supposed to be the more home grown choice. If that argument really played in CT, what could a blog do to warp that view? On the other hand if all Lamont lacked to pick up votes was credibility, and his stand on issues was well received, then yes blog buzz might contribute to something that was already there.
Actually, it’s at least credible that the site was taken down by DoS, at least according to the noise coming from the LiberCampaign covered over at TalkingPointsMemo. They probably wouldn’t be filing a complaint with the US attorney if they just forgot to pay their billz.
Peretz….”featured the writing of dedicated race-baiter….”
____________________
You mean “race-baiters” like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters, who are campaigning for Mr. Ned?
Soros funds Atrios, Media Matters, Think Progress, Daily Kos, and Glenn Greenwald
Thank God there haven’t been any right-wing billionaires out there propping up right-wing think tanks, media outlets and publishing houses. I mean, aside from Richard Mellon Scaife, Joseph Coors, the Joseph M. Olin Foundation, Rupert Murdoch, the Bradley Foundation, etc. etc.
Seriously, are you being disingenous with these arguments, or are you just genuinely ignorant of the ways in which right-wing philanthropists created the entire conservative infrastructure of the 1970s? The Heritage Foundation, AEI, the Business Roundtable, the Cato Institute, the Hoover Institution, Fairness in Media, Accuracy in Media, etc. etc. — do you think these things just sprouted from the ground? Billions of dollars were spent to get these things off the ground and keep them going, a sort of conservative welfare system for right-wing pundits.
Anyone who complains about Soros doing exactly what they did — but on a much smaller scale, three decades later — reveals a level of ignorance that would be staggering from anyone except a Republican shill.
Cry me a river, Felicity. We didn’t make the rules, we’re just trying to catch up.
Yeah, Gilliard updated the article since I read it last, apparently the “unpaid” page is a default. Still, I’ve seen no evidence presented for a DoS much less evidence for who might have done it, just lots of finger-pointing.
“Nasty irony” about Lamont as “International Jew”? Maybe if you twist yourself into Peretzels.
It’s more like a sledgehammer of irony.
Unusually easy access to capital is the only reason the New Republic still exists, after losing money for, basically, its entire existence. Unusually easy access to capital is why Marty Peretz’s prose has never hit a copywriter’s desk (with the force of Bruce Lee). Unusually easy access to capital is why Marty Peretz isn’t writing his rants on construction paper and stapling them to telephone poles.
Read “business” for “journalism” and Eric Alterman’s comment still holds true:
“[T]he key thing to know about Peretz is that his entire position in the world of politics is due to the fact that he purchased TNR with money his wife inherited from her Singer Sewing [M]achine fortune. Peretz is always viciously attacking people who have earned their intellectual or journalistic credentials, rather than purchased them, and I wonder if his own precarious position is this world is the key to the frequent slander to which he subjects those with more genuine literary accomplishments.”
“You mean “race-baitersâ€? like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters, who are campaigning for Mr. Ned?”
Wow. I guess we could talk about your definition of “race-baiting.” Or, more productively, you could just go somewhere else you fucking useless troll.
Devil,
Perhaps you should “tip toe [with your cloven hooves?] back through your history book” to discover that your friends the Communists were allied with Nazi Germany in the first two years of World War II. It is called the Hitler/Stalin pact.
I love your thinking. Because Nazi German declared war on the United States that made it kosher for us to attack them? What did they do, fax the declaration over, to make it official and legal? Conversely, if they hadn’t declared war on us, should we have stayed out of it?
Perhaps you should “tip toe [with your cloven hooves?] back through your history book� to discover that your friends the Communists were allied with Nazi Germany in the first two years of World War II. It is called the Hitler/Stalin pact.
So the CPUSA followed the Stalinist line — surprise, surprise — and therefore all liberals were in bed with the Nazis?
By your reasoning, I suppose Roosevelt and Truman were die-hard conservatives.
I’m confused as to what all the WWII BS has to do with anything right now.
Seriously, why does the entire conservative rhetorical universe revolve around that one war where we were putatively so unambiguously morally correct? Does it have to do this just to lend some faux-righteousness to what are obviously morality-free contemporary decisions?
It’s completely ahistorical, asking people to view one situation through the circumstances of another without regard to whether they are analogous. You might as well just stop all this historical handwaving: WWII wasn’t a fight against a few scattered thousands of Islamic radicals. It just wasn’t, and it’s just dumb pretending that Islamic radicalism is a kind of Fascism in order to make yourself feel better about murdering civilians halfway around the world. Give it up.
cs said,
Since you asked, Jessie Jackson is a lying race-baiting, shake-down artist, serial adulterer, multi-millionaire who is guilty of doing untold damage to black America.
Al Sharpton paid a girl to have human waste wiped on her and to lie about being raped, in order to blame the hoax on some innocent white guy.
Mad Max is an unhinged nut-case who supports anything Hugo Chavez says or does and who claimed the CIA was responsible for hooking the blacks in Los Angeles on crack.
I’m sorry, what does that have to do with the price of hogbelly futures on the Istanbul futures market? So you read your Reactionary Racist Oppo Research Monthly and believe every bit of it. Good job. You get a Republican Shill Gold Star Award and a pat on the head.
I think the original point was that Peretz equating Jackson, Waters, and Sharpton with “the evil left come to destroy the Party” was engaging in race-baiting. Which it just simply is, regardless of the characters of those politicians. Retard.
[…] Marty, Joe Lieberman’s bulldog, doesn’t want the Democrats to win. […]
cs,
Your observation is correct. Where the Left compares Iraq and the War on Terror to Vietnam, the Right compares it to World War II.
Radical Islam IS fascist!
And we are not talking about a few thousand people. There are one billion Muslims in the world, and if ten percent of them supports Jihadism against the West, we are talking about one-hundred million people.
But the Left does not want to confront evil; it prefers to confront the people who confront evil (much like on a college campus). It fears Bush/Blair more than Ahmadinejad/Nasrallah, which is like fearing Churchill /Roosevelt more than Hitler/Mussolini .
Jose, put down the bong. You’re making conservatives seem even dumber than they are.
prefers to confront the people who confront evil (much like on a college campus).
is that why none of the war-supporting College Republicans have signed up to serve?
It fears Bush/Blair more than Ahmadinejad/Nasrallah,
Remind me again which one of those guys is currently wrecking the economy, piling up the deficit and national debt, ignoring global warming, doing nothing about gas prices, gutting our infrastructure, enabling corporate criminals, and doing dickall about actual homeland security?
Whichever guy that is, that’s the one I’m worried about.
Right Wing Talking Points for Dummies
1. Evil = Anything we don’t like
2. We don’t like Liberals
3. Liberals = Evil
4. We don’t like Nazis
5. Nazis = Evil
6. Liberals = Nazis
7. We don’t like Hezbollah
8. Hezbollah = Evil
9. Hezbollah = Liberals
________________Hey, can I play?
Left Wing Talking Points for Dummies
1) Evil = Anything we don’t like
2) We don’t like Republicans
3) Republicans = Evil
4) We don’t like Nazis
5) Nazis = Evil
6) Republicans = Nazis
7) We don’t like Israel
8) Israel = Evil
9) Israelis = Republicans
You messed it up, Jose. It’s not supposed to be Left Wing Talking Points from Dummies.
Hey, can I play?
no, this isn’t Calvinball.
Jose Chung:
Woah. You have officially crossed the line from troll to delusional troll.
Or maybe you’re just a small man somewhere who’se been scared badly by people telling you lies, I don’t know. Operating on that assumption:
Know what? Yeah, there are a lot of Muslims in the world. And, yes, there are getting to be more of them every minute. And yes, a few of them have some grievances with the manner in which America has conducted its foreign policy. But, no, in reality there simply aren’t that many Islamic Fundamentalists devoted to establishing a continents-spanning theocratic state. There just aren’t. Look up the research. It’s just not the case. And it’s silly to construct this Muslim horde as boogeyman: most people, everywhere ya go, are concerned with having happy lives and feeding their kids. Been to Iowa? It’s like that, but with better food.
And is the way to address those Muslims with grievances to bomb the ever living hell out of them? Probably not – that’s a pretty good way to make them want you dead. It’s not the EVIL you so want to fear, but it’ll certainly make people do aggressive things toward you.
Look, maybe you want an Evil in the world. Maybe you loose touch with your gonads once you take off your Superhero suit. Maybe fear and paranoia have become central to the functioning of your ego. I dunno. But you should probably travel in the Muslim world – you know, take a walk around, meet the embodiment of this EVIL. You’d probably see straight through your paranoid delusion to your throbbing, painfully obvious ignorance – just like pretty much everybody else outside your wierd ideological bubble does.
Otto Man,
Thank you.
The economy? What do you know about the economy? Probably nothing, I would guess. A big CNBC and WSJ aficionado, are you? You probably know more about crack cocaine than the economy. Be honest.
The deficit? How do spell ir·rel·e·vant?
Global warming? That, my friend, is where you and I differ. Liberals are worried about Global Warming and Conservatives are worried about Islamic Terror. No distinction could be clearer. Personally, I enjoy warm weather. Tell Al Gore, the weatherman for the baby boomber generation, to chill out, will you please?
Gutting our infrastructure? Like the Big Dig?
Corporate criminals? Oh, yes. Corporations are Evil. That is so Marxist.
Gas prices? With gas prices so high, doesn’t it help prove how strong the economy is? (Oh, I forgot, you don’t think these things through, do you?)
Homeland security? I’m at a loss. We haven’t been attacked in five years. Shouldn’t you be talking about all the civil liberties you have personally lost instead?
cs,
How many Muslim or Arab countries have you visited?
It did seem possible at first that Loserman’s site went down due to DoS.
But it turns out that the site is on a meager server, $15/month host that was easily overwhelmed by traffic, and immediately suspended due to exceeding bandwidth – (Americablog had a screencap of the page saying account suspended and asking for site owner to call billing) and furthermore that Joe’s campaign is so inept that they couldn’t get a check out to get the site back up. Then they reveled in being able to whine to the press and play the victim card because let’s face it, whining is just what Joe’s best at.
Or maybe the staff just decided to pack it in early.
The Jose Rupperrts can’t admit that it wasn’t dirty tricks from the oppo, because Republicans can’t imagine winning an election without cheating.
Look guys, the fact is that –and I know what I’m talking about–Conservatives call Islamic Terror “evil.” They don’t call Liberals evil; silly, yes; foolish, yes; naive, yes; ignorant, yes; child-like, yes; but evil, no.
It is Liberals who call Republicans like George Bush evil.
“Republicans can’t imagine winning an election without cheating.”
____________________
When a Republican wins an election there is always fraud involved. But when a Democrat wins an election there is never fraud involved.
That about sum it up?
What I want to know: Who’s paying Wang Chung?
The economy? What do you know about the economy? Probably nothing, I would guess. A big CNBC and WSJ aficionado, are you? You probably know more about crack cocaine than the economy. Be honest.
Sure, I’ll be honest. Look at the numbers.
When Bush took over on January 22, 2001, the Index Closing Values were as follows — the Dow Jones Industrial Average: 10,578.24; S&P 500: 1342.9; and NASDAQ Composite: 2757.91. Where are they today? Dow’s at 11,173; the S&P’s at 1271.48; NASDAQ’s at 2060.
I know you’re a conservative, so let me explain those to you — after five and a half years, the Dow is slightly up and the S&P and NASDAQ are both down, and the latter’s badly down, a marker that most analysts see as the troubling one.
The deficit? How do spell ir·rel·e·vant?
You and Dick Cheney may think it’s irrelevant, but you’re alone on this one. Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending it’s not going to cause problems isn’t going to keep them from coming true. We’re going to be grappling with runaway inflation soon, not too mention a record national debt with 10% of the IOUs in the hands of Communist China.
Global warming? That, my friend, is where you and I differ. Liberals are worried about Global Warming and Conservatives are worried about Islamic Terror. No distinction could be clearer. Personally, I enjoy warm weather. Tell Al Gore, the weatherman for the baby boomber generation, to chill out, will you please?
Christ, you are willfully stupid. This isn’t Al Gore ranting, it’s the vast majority of the scientific community in near universal agreement on the matter. Science magazine surveyed all the extant publications on the issue and found overwhelming agreement that the threat is real and growing worse.
You like hot weather? Good, you’re in for a lot more. The ten hottest years on record all came after 1990, with 2005 being the hottest. The first half of 2006 has already beaten 2005, so we’re looking at a record setter. Now’s the time to buy some beachfront property in the Appalachans.
Gutting our infrastructure? Like the Big Dig?
No, like the entire electrical grid of the Northeast. You know, the one that failed completely in 2003 and came close this season? What? There’s a tunnel in Boston? Oh, that’s much worse.
Corporate criminals? Oh, yes. Corporations are Evil. That is so Marxist.
No, you stupid fuck, corporations aren’t evil, but the CEOs who screw over their own workers, dissolve their pension funds, and provide themselves golden parachutes are.
Gas prices? With gas prices so high, doesn’t it help prove how strong the economy is? (Oh, I forgot, you don’t think these things through, do you?)
Can anyone explain this comment to me? Maybe with the puppets Jose used to create it?
Homeland security? I’m at a loss. We haven’t been attacked in five years. Shouldn’t you be talking about all the civil liberties you have personally lost instead?
No, fuckwit, I’m talking about the fact that port security is a joke, with 5% of crates getting inspected; that chemical and nuclear plant security is so bad local news teams with cameras have been able to waltz in; and that we’re only considering border security now because the GOP wants to round up votes from people scared about the gay Mexlamofascists.
And, yes, I’ve realized you’re a troll. There’s no way anyone could be this willfully stupid and proudly ignorant in real life. Right? Right?
They don’t call Liberals evil
Oh really?
If nothing else, Jose is ably disproving the theory of intelligent design.
Why, with loaves of bread costing so many rubles, the Soviet economy MUST be fantastic!
Well, it’s true that you, personally, have not been blow up yet. And i guess, if you ignore the constant terrorist attacks in the Middle East, and ignore that whole London Underground bombing thing, that no one else has, either.
Chung –
I’ve been to a zillion Muslim countries. I was raised in Saudi Arabia but did my time on the line in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, for sure.
In fact, I’m in Saudi Arabia right now. I’m actually sitting at the International Conference of Evil Islamic Fundamentalists at the Marriott in downtown Medina. Our fingers are pretty tired from melodramatically twirling our beards while talking about how we’re going to use our evil genius to overcome mass poverty and illiteracy in order to conquer to most powerful nation in the history of the world. But we’ve pretty much got that tied up already, though. Next we’re going to talk about how we want to make your wife wear a chador and not let her drive. Yep, we’re certainly a force of Evil posing an existential threat to the US. I’d be shitting bricks if I lived there, engaging in near hysterical ideological handwaving and shreading those obstructionist constitutional amendments as fast as possible – ’cause damn, once we get over there, you guys’ll be in trouble.
But Chung, please, don’t put on your Conservative Superhero Suit and troll liberal satire sites: those liberals are our weak willed allies and those satire sites are crucial incubators of liberal appeasers. With you out there battling the forces of groupthink, IslamoFascism is DOOMED, so just, like, concentrate on living your life free from worry, ok?
The deficit? How do spell ir·rel·e·vant?
this could be the funniest thing on teh internets today.
I liked how he had to sound out irrelevant.
Irregardless!
When a Republican wins an election there is always fraud involved. But when a Democrat wins an election there is never fraud involved.
That about sum it up?
Crap, JC, fraud is pretty much always involved.
It just seems to always break for Republicans.
Homeland security? I’m at a loss. We haven’t been attacked in five years.
We haven’t been attacked, but the global rate of terrorism has shot through the roof under the watchful eye of C-Plus Augustus.
Feel free to attack the source in that article. It’s the Bush State Department. Lousy bunch of commies.
The economy? What do you know about the economy?
Wow. Who knew Jose’s an economist. And once again, we’ve hurt his feelings.
cs,
How many Muslim or Arab countries have you visited?
That’s a fair question. Now let me ask one. Jose: How many WARS you been in, brave boy?
mikey
The deficit? How do spell ir·rel·e·vant?
There it is.
The Modern Republican economic vision in one short description
“[Conservatives] don’t call Liberals evil;” … and Jose knows what he’s talking about
Perhaps you should “tip toe [with your cloven hooves?] back through your history book� to discover that your friends the Communists were allied with Nazi Germany in the first two years of World War II. It is called the Hitler/Stalin pact.
Oh, I know all about that alliance of theirs – y’know, the one where two paranoid and powerful leaders contented themselves with eyeballing one another suspiciously for two years rather than going head to head right away. That doesn’t disprove a thing I said: the Russians paid a huge price to rid Europe of the Nazis.
I love your thinking. Because Nazi German declared war on the United States that made it kosher for us to attack them?
Don’t ask me; ask the politicians who waited precisely that long to attack the Nazis, rather than declaring pre-emptive war on Germany when that country marched into and occupied Poland in 1939.
What did they do, fax the declaration over, to make it official and legal? Conversely, if they hadn’t declared war on us, should we have stayed out of it?
Well, gee, why not? We stayed out of it when the Germans passed the Nuremberg Laws. We stayed out of it when they attacked Poland and started deporting people “East.�
We stayed out of it when, over 50 years later, Serb forces began “ethnically cleansing� their little plot of land and spreading outwards. We stayed out of it in Rwanda, when 800 000 people were killed in the space of 13 months. We stayed out of it in Darfur, too; and in North Korea, to a great extent.
We didn’t stay out of it when we armed Hussein against Iran, or when we offered financial support to Bin Laden and his lackeys against the Soviets in the 1980s.
It seems the US decision to get involved or not had never been based on morals, but on political convenience.
But then suddenly, America’s heart grew seven times its original size when it heard the Iraqis’ pleas for freedom, and decided to attack another nation under false pretenses. Iraq hadn’t done any marching in ten years, but Hussein had been violating his citizens’ human rights all that time.
So unless you can give me a cogent argument besides, “you don’t LIKE Nazis…do you?�, you can just go on and fuck yourself.
So this guys says, that the moderate Democrat should be elected over the more liberal guy in the more liberal state because it will spell the end of the national party and a then troll walks by. Quick: what percentage of Muslims want to destroy the West?
The Devil’s Advocate,
Judging from your comments, you have no understanding of the effect or the intent of the Hitler/Stalin pact.
What’s more, your mother should clean your mouth out with soap. There’s no need to use such nasty language. I would appreciate it if we could do this without the profanity.
Jose? Fuck you in the ass. Twice, with SOS pads. I believe you are the cum-gargling ass twat that Brad always warned me about. You come over here, you lie your ass off, you have a mind closed tighter than a skinheads ass in the shower at pelican bay, and you wanna complain? Here’s a hint, asshat. Don’t troll. I dunno what Rove is paying you, but if you can’t take the heat, I’m sure you can find friends at Powerline and LGF. Want me to go over and ask them if you can come over and play? Dick….
mikey
Chung –
You’re a troll – the last thing you get to do is play language cop. If the language bothers you, go somewhere else.
Bitch.
“com gargling ass twat”
Nice.
Stole it from one of the propeiters of this fine drinking establishment. But it does get it said, don’t it…
mikey
It’s a little incoherent, but it makes up for it in zeal, for sure.
I find I have a hard time assembling the profanity truly called for by truly whiny little raw asshole bitchboy trolls like Chung without resorting to the “NounVerbing” construction – the old “fucking cumguzzling, shiteating, etc. etc.” It’s definitely a failing.
you have a mind closed tighter than a skinheads ass in the shower at pelican bay
Hee hee
I think I’ve worked out why the crusadis like to claim that “Islamists” are fascists, a rather specific political form to which Islamism bears no comparison* (apart from wanting the chance to play at being the Greatest Generation, without, of course, the fighting and sacrifices and so on). It’s because they balk at the more obvious description: the Islamic Religious Right.
While Jose’s doing his remedial history reading he might want to look into the real reason right-wing Islam is currently a problem. It has a little to do with decades of succour from the West, all part of a sweet plan to destroy Third World leftists, liberals and economic nationalists (“communism”) of which the cherry-on-top was the Carter and Bush I adminstrations’ sterling work creating an internationalist Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan to fight the Russkies.
We stand in the detritus of this monumentally stupid Cold War policy. If Righties had a longer memory than goldfish, they’d realise that.
* Not that there’s never been such a thing as Arab fascists. There was the Lebanese Falange but unfortunately for Jose they were a) Christian and b) allies of Israel.
Judging from your comments, you have no understanding of the effect or the intent of the Hitler/Stalin pact.
Oh, thiiiis oughta be good.
Use your vast historical knowledge – that from which you drew a comparison between the War in Iraq and WW2 – to explain this to us all what the Molotov-Ribentropp Pact was about.
Just because the assholes involved agreed to subdivide a few countries as a way of solidifying their commitment to one another doesn’t means theirs was a marriage made in heaven.
The USSR approached the Allies to form an anti-fascist pact before it approached Germany for a non-aggression pact, asswipe.
They – Germany and Russia – were afraid of one another. And, more specifically, Russia was afraid of the Axis – and for damn good reason.
What’s more, your mother should clean your mouth out with soap. There’s no need to use such nasty language. I would appreciate it if we could do this without the profanity.
Suck my brown-eye, you cum-guzzling son of a two-dollar whore. Tell me, is your father more closely related to your mother than he should be?
So, not to interrupt you while you compare whose WWII dick is bigger or whatever, the CT primary has gone Lamont. Peretz gets to see whether “the left” really does drag the Party down, or whatever incomprehensible bullshit was supposed to be communicated by that red-baiting, race-baiting garbage up top. Neato.
p.s. Chung, you still suck.
Typos. Ugh.
And Lieberman is officially an ex-parrot. I mean democrat. He wouldn’t Vooom if you put forty thousand volts through him. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying.
Bastard. If anybody’s going to bring the Democratic Party down, it’s Lieberman running as independent.
Kick him out of the party now, Harry!
So, I heard the soundbite of Lieberman on the radio this morning, saying that he will not let the “polarization” of the Democratic party nor the result of the election “stand,” and he’s going to do this by running as an independent, just as he warned. Does he not get that the Democrats voted and they don’t want him, and if he runs as an independent that means diddly-squat (winky to Jose) in terms of the Democratic party? What, is he supposedly going to win as an Indep. and then switch back to the Democrats?
Nutmeggers: Got a vote burning a hole in your pocket? Why not throw it away on Joe “Sore Loser” Lieberman?
[…] [Gavin adds: Hey ‘Tardo, doesn’t Peretz apparently have a little problem with black people?] […]
“Mr. Lamont has almost no experience in public life. �
Good thing he’s only running for Senate and not, say, President.
[…] clever Mr. Wankinger! But actually, the right honorable gentleman, Mr. Imus, was (rather like the Wall-Street Journal) purveying the most indecent politics with his speech. It’s not that he’s earthy or […]