Let’s all share a laugh at Jim Martin’s expense.


ATLANTA—Jim Martin, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, today issued the following statement only two days after he caved into the “temptation to say stupid things” and blamed U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) for all the woes of Wall Street.

“Earlier this week I held a news conference and I held Saxby Chambliss accountable for the over 400 point fall in the stock market,” Martin said. “Now in the past two days the market has risen by over 800 points and in keeping with my previous line of thinking, I give Saxby Chambliss full credit for this turn around. I commend him and call on all Georgians to thank him for acting quickly to single handedly bring about this dramatic turn around in the U.S. financial markets.”



Now clearly no one with an ounce of intelligence actually believes one lone U.S. Senator can make the Dow Jones Industrial drop 400 points in one day, much less increase nearly 800 points over the course of next two days. But Jim Martin did just that when he called a press conference on Tuesday and blamed Saxby for the current instability on Wall Street. So if he really believes Saxby caused the market to drop, then he must also believe Saxby is responsible for the market’s increase.

Of course, you will never see a release like this from Jim Martin. It is too much to ask of a liberal democrat to stick by his own words – but it would be refreshing to see one day.


  1. boyreporter says:

    “It is too much to ask of a liberal democrat to stick by his own words” –

    Buzz, I don’t believe I’d go on about people sticking by their words, given the verbal whirligigs John McCain has been caught up in daily for the last several. Pot and kettle and all that.

  2. Chris says:

    Actually Buzz, I think he’s saying he’s smoking pot from a kettle. Most people call that a “bong” but its clear that boyreporter has killed off most of his brain cells so the correct noun probably escapes him.

  3. Martin only had it partially right. One lone U.S. Senator might not be able to drive our economy into the ground, but 100 of them can, along with 434 Representatives and a U.S. President. For the last 95 years or so.

  4. GOPGrassroots says:

    That’s actually pretty funny. It’s nice to see that Saxby has a sense of humor. Jim Martin runs only negative ads and always looks like he’s sucking on a lemon.

  5. Doug Deal says:


    I finally saw a Martin ad last night, several plays of it actually, and he is impossible to understand without effort. So I guess not only does he look like he is sucking a lemon, he sounds like it to.

  6. odinseye2k says:


    Ron Paul, of course!

    I’m a little curious to see how an economy with many-fold real growth and an explosion of variety in goods produced has been “screwed up,” but whatever.

    I’ll let Chris Matthews say the rest for me. Starting somewhere around “Here’s how we keep score in the political world..”

  7. Vic says:

    there is no such thing as Liberal and Conservative as of yesterday.

    You now own the Banks, Brokerage firms and Mortgage companies. So you now get the pay their mortgages and your own.

    Free markets and the illusion of Fiscally Conservative Republicans was a nice fantasy while they lasted.

  8. odinseye2k says:

    By the way…

    Does that mean that now that we own the banks (or at least the worst of the mortgages), can we give people their homes back? And maybe negotiate some sane terms for said mortgages so that there is a chance that we eventually get that money back?

  9. boyreporter says:

    Buzz and Chris: Sorry I can’t make it to the weekly meeting in Buzz’s mom’s basement — even though the cool Wii is tempting — but you guys go on without me. McCain’s cool! Palin is, too, but she’s a girl, so what would we know, right? Hee-hee-hee-…

  10. Jmac says:

    Does this mean Saxby is endorsing large infusions of public money in order to stabilize the financial markets?

    Gosh, who sounds like a liberal now?

  11. bowersville says:

    Boy Reporter, I’m getting sick and tired of your progressive bullsh#t and so much so that I truly hope you get your way and Obama/Biden is elected.

    You Boy have no knowledge except pseudo knowledge that you get from google.

    So Boy, I hope you get your way, life will teach you. You are just like the other ignorants that said about the farmers, let them go to the grocery store and buy their groceries just like I have to.

    I’ve got news for you boy, there are some of us out here with the Palin survival instinct, who don’t need your government handouts, your [email protected] greenback handouts nor your grocery stores and boy you ain’t one of them.

  12. odinseye2k says:

    Ron Paul is pretty much the right-wing equivalent of Ralph Nader at this point (at least in terms of irrelevance and ego … maybe Bob Barr will serve the electoral equivalent).

    I’ll save myself the time and guess he said something about taking all hands off the wheel and restoring the gold standard.

  13. Doug Deal says:


    There are a lot of things with which I agree with Ron Paul, but there are also a number of things with which I disagree. Not having the government bail people out is where we agree the most, but in other areas of the economy he is flat out wrong.

    Gold has no more intrinsic value than “fiat money”, aluminum, oil futures or junk bonds. It all just comes down to the confidence the average investor has in its relative value.

  14. micah4 says:


    One could of course say the same thing about aluminum, oil, automobiles, diamonds, real estate or any other product or commodity. What gold (or any real commodity based “money”) *does* have over a fiat currency is a supply that is limited by real physical constraints and is therefore more difficult to manipulate through artificial inflation and deflation- not to mention a track record of people demonstrating confidence in the intrinsic value of the commodity for thousands of years.

  15. micah4 says:

    The other thing Gold (and Silver) have over fiat money is that they are constitutional authority as legal tender, which is the most important distinction for political purposes.

  16. micah4 says:

    The other thing Gold (and Silver) have over fiat money is that constitutional authority to hold the position of legal tender, which is the most important distinction for political purposes.

  17. bowersville says:

    Boy Reporter

    Before you throw out your racist garbage again, I wish you would consider…Georgia has two statewide office holders that are black.

    In case you don’t know, can I remind you of Thurbert Baker and Michael Thurmond.

    Oh and yes both have been re-elected in Georgia by racist white trash Georgians in case you didn’t notice.

  18. odin, Ron Paul isn’t “right wing”. He’s conservative – that is, what conservative used to mean before the RINOs and neocons took over the GOP.

    And Doug, I think I’ll take Dr. Paul’s long experience and expertise in this area over yours. 🙂

  19. Doug Deal says:


    I am not asking for your support, nor do I expect it. I will submit that experience may mean one is more likely to come to a correct conclusion, it is no guarentee.

    There were scientists who at one time professed that the earth was the center of the universe. They probably had a whole lifetime of experience professing such a conclusion. I have never worked as an astronomer in my life, yet I have great confidence that I am correct.

  20. Doug Deal says:


    You are flat out wrong. Only the states are prohibited from making anything but gold or silver legal tender. Congress can make grains of sand legal tender if they want.

    Also, Gold is one of the more abundent elements in the Earth’s crust. Pretty much every bit of soil has some in it, and pretty much every bit of sea water has some disolved in it. When technology increases to the point where it is feasible to extract at a low cost from such sources, what then happens to this stability?

    The price of gold is the price of gold for one reason. Investors think it is worth that price. It is the same for grain, copper, stocks and a barrel of oil.

  21. boyreporter says:

    Doug Deal, Bowelsville…such a circle jerk in both senses of the word. And the arguments over gold and what it means. What is this, the 19th Century? Oh. Republicans. Conservatives. Of course it is.

  22. bowersville says:

    Just like I thought Boy Reporter. You can’t see the light because that liberal pie in the sky is in your racist eyes.

    When you crawl out of your bigoted racist hole, out from under that rock. Look up the sun is still shining.

  23. bowersville says:

    BoyR, your moniker would suit you better if you change it to Archie Bunker.

    That way, even a simpleton like me would understand to write you off as a bigot and/or a racist or would understand you are carrying a great hatred for anyone that doesn’t agree with your dark outlook on life.

  24. boyreporter says:

    Bowelsville: I’m impressed that you can see so well with your head up your a–. And don’t call yourself a simpleton. You have a long way to go to reach that high level.

  25. micah4 says:

    Doug: Allowing for the moment the claim that congress has authority to make grains of sand legal tender- this says nothing of whether such acts constitute good government.

    As far as the “abundance” issue goes, it seems to me that such a consideration would only serve to take the wind out of the sails of the major arguments against a gold standard, namely that there isn’t enough gold or that the supply of gold can’t be adequately expanded to keep pace with economic growth.

    But, you know as well as I do that despite the “abundance” of Gold in dirt and seawater, the process of extracting and refining that gold takes sums of energy so immense as to make it economically impractical even at today’s gold prices which are near twenty year (nominal) highs. If the “abundance” of Gold were ever were to become a concern, then I would have to suppose that we must have mastered some form of fusion power or some other abundantly cheap and clean source of energy. If that were the case, then it would undoubtedly also be true that such a remarkable decrease in the cost of energy would be accompanied by tremendous economic growth spurred by this new inexpensive source of energy, in which case an expansion of the supply of gold for money would probably be precisely what was called for. And since energy at any price must compete for other energy-intensive profit returning activity, the value of gold would only fall so far before enterprises would stop directing energy towards the production of gold towards other more productive enterprises. The transportation sector alone would provide immense competition for returning value by soaking up this abundant and inexpensive energy. At any rate, any “problem” which can be posited as a concern only given a base assumption of some groundbreaking new source of cheap, clean, abundant energy is, as they say, “a fine problem to have”.

  26. Progressive Dem says:

    The market swinging back 400 points on Friday doesn’t mean a damn thing. We are a long way from ending this recession and credit crisis.

    Congress does not need to rush to judgement. You can always bet that when somebody says we have to act right now or something terrible is going to happen that somebody is pulling a con job. We need to slow down and start asking some rational questions like: why AIG and not Lehman Brothers? Who is benefiting? What is the specific impact on the overall economy? Why shouldn’t values be written down from the market correction? What is the taxpayer getting?

    The bailout is being sold on fear. This is the same way they sold the Iraq war (a mushroom cloud over an American city). We saw how overblown that threat was. I’m tired of people crying wolf and the taxpayers being called in to pay for something that we have no business spending money on.

    Government intervention may be needed, but we alsoshave to accept economic realities, which means some people loose money. The taxpayers should be the last people to lose money. Let the corporations and speculators take the losses first. Let’s slow down and not make any rush to judgement. Committing the taxpayers to a trillion dollar expense is a 1 with 12 zeros after it. That is one big number!!! Slow down.

  27. Doug Deal says:

    Bizarro Progressive Dem? Is that you?

    Interesting how the party of “for the children” and all sort of emergency fix legislation since the time of Andrew Jackson are now calling for a slow response from the government.

    I wholeheartedly agree that the response to most “crisis” is a more considered approach, and generally means doing nothing. Somehow, I still have the sneaking suspicion that if the letters were reversed, you would be back to your old self.


  28. micah4 says:

    Doug, if you’re really too ignorant to recognize the qualities that make gold and silver superior materials to perform the role of money as compared to salt, then perhaps you should just stick to your petty quibbles about how people format their posts.

  29. Progressive Dem says:

    DD, I obviously don’t speak for the party. However I’m afraid that both parties are going to cave-in to a reason that is based on fear, and little else. We need to dig in a little deeper. Some action may very well be necessary, but let’s have our eyes open before we sign on to an arrangement that hamstrings us.

    And speaking of quick emergency fixes, I guess you are referring to the “drill now” crowd. Or perhaps, the school vouchers proposal of Sen Johnson?

  30. Doug Deal says:


    I am against calling anything a “solution” that doesn’t address long term issue. Getting the government out of the way for places that are feasible to drill, just seems rational. However, until nuclear power is fast-tracked, everything else is just a delaying action.

    Both political parties sell out the best interests of the nation as a whole in order to acheive and maintain power. Individual members of the government do the same in their own way as well.

    In the end, all blame really comes down squarely on the head of the voter. The voter who gives Congress a 20% approval rating or less, but re-elects their representatives over 95% of the time.

  31. Tea Party says:


    That last comment “…The voter who gives Congress a 20% approval rating or less, but re-elects their representatives over 95% of the time…” bears examination.

    In the era of re-districting to ensure political vialibility do we not see the legislators picking the voters, instead of vice versa?

  32. Doug Deal says:


    That is true and wrong as well, however the voters in that district are still giving Congress an approval rating in the teens, yet still returns that representative back to Congress with high marks.

    Again, it is the voter who allows such a situation, and mainly because to an overwelming number of voters, their intellectual investment in voting is on par with rooting for a sports team. It all comes down to the little letter by their name.

  33. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    If you put a small mustache on Jim Martin he’d look like Hitler. A nice Hitler from an alternate reality, may be the artist he wanted to be 😉

    Which reminds me of baby Jesus. Which baby Jesus do you like most? I like to think of Jesus as a mischievous badger.

  34. Progressive Dem says:

    Peach, the only thing Saxby is going shake up is a cocktail shaker. If there was ever a senator that is part of good ol’ boy club of insiders, it is Saxby Chambliss. He is bought and paid for by the agribusiness lobbysts. There is little difference between him and Herman Talmadge.

    I agree Doug that nuclear is the biggest bang for our buck and doesn’t pollute the air. We have to reach some concensus on waste however, before we fast-track it. It is a much better option than so-called clean coal.

    And Tea has put his finger on the most signifcant (imho) screw-up in democracy – reapportionment. Allowing elected officials to choose their constituents is disaster. The genius of our government is that it based upon the competition of ideas. The candidate with the most rational approach wins the vote. It forces candidates to be flexible and to find solutions. If you aren’t on top of your game finding solutions and explaining why they work, you are out of office. Instead our congressmen do not compete for votes. We send people to Washington that don’t have to work together, and they don’t get much accomplished. That is why the polls are so low for congress. Instead of working together to find solutions, they can just throw bricks from the sidelines at anything that isn’t exactly what the folks back home want. We need non-partisan commissions to set the political boundaries as they do in Iowa.

  35. Doug Deal says:


    Instead of reapportionment, I thought they should elect all representatives at-large, and give every voter one vote. Let the top x candidates get a spot in the delegation. Then, you don’t have to worry about primaries, reapportionment or a lot of other things, a candidate just needs to find a large enough constituency to support him from around the state.

    Of course there are problems with a state like California with over 50 reps, which might field 200 candidates. However, with computers, there is no real limit to the number of people on the ballot.

  36. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Doug & Progressive,

    Did either of you read the Federalist Papers?

    The House of Representatives is too big. In my opinion, and Madison & Hamilton’s as well, if all the members do not know each other on firstname basis…it is too big.

    Will multiple parties make more competition? Some what.

    But, an increased number of electors will create better competition.

    California may get 200 candidates for U.S. House…but only 60 of them are qualified (intellectually) to serve in the capacity that Congress demands. Just look at GA.

    We have 7 democratic challengers. Only 6…maybe 5, are congressional material. Even look at our sitting congressmen. 3 of the 13 won the popularity contests but are definitely terrible congressman. Of the remaining 10, 6 (maybe 7) are actually decent/good congressmen.

    The Constitution is more about the end game rather than instant gratification.

  37. Doug Deal says:


    There was also some argument that Representatives should know the people they represent. Being 1/650,000 is not really conducive to that sort of thing.

    In the end, the only real reform would be to neuter the Federal Government into a more limited role, and give more but inferior power to the states and local government. Then, people in Georgia will not have to worry year after year what crazy things Reps from California or New York will come up with every year, and vice versa.

    Less power means less worry, and less reason for the win-at-all-cost mentality.

  38. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Yes…it is called Federalism.

    There are some “powers” that eventually become usurped by the Federal Government though. Education, for example, is a service that is best distributed by the states…but regulated by the Feds.

    In many areas of our system there are national security issues at stake.

    The feds are terrible at micro-managing, but do a decent job at “protecting” us.

Comments are closed.