Chambliss Press Release: MARTIN THANKS SAXBY FOR QUICK TURNAROUND IN FINANCIAL MARKETS
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.”
###
DISCLAIMER
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.
{ 58 comments }
← Previous Comments
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.
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.
Progressive,
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.
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.
AuH2O,
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.
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.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I thought Saxby was running for the U.S. Senate?
When did they reduce that to 4 years?
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.