On Lieberman, Likability, And (Sore) Losers

Karlo (the man who JUST can't ever get enough cat blogging) notes in Comments regarding my post about the possibility of a John McCain/Joe Lieberman ticket, This refers to Republican presidential nominee Sen. McCain's talk the other day where McCain - perhaps kidding, perhaps not - pointed to allegedly but not actually (Indy) Democrat Sen. Joseph Lieberman, there to provide support and an endorsement for his fellow hawk Republican ::cough::, and mentioned that Joementum might make a great vice president.

Specifically, Karlo asks "does anyone actually like Lieberman?" given his "new and disproved, not improved" status as the far right wing's and Bush's favorite Orthodox Jewish lackey. After all, it can be hard for the loony right to offer anyone who is not a fascist Christian the time of day much less that most minute hint of respect. Thus, when looking for a token "not me" to suggest they aren't racist, too, it helps that they can wrap a crazy war hawk together with a Jew who wants to see the Biblical rapture and armageddon occur every bit as much as they do, regardless of how many Jews and Muslims they have to consign to hell to do it.

So yes, Virginia...er... Karlo, someone likes Lieberman. His wife. The loony right just pretends to tolerate him, just as they often utter the words, "Some of my best friends are black" and "I don't hate gay people. I just feel justified in telling everyone gays are promiscuous and mentally ill while I deny them the right to marry and make their lives miserable."

However, in fairness, I have to say that there was a time when, as Lieberman's constituent, I had some respect for the man. He's always been prissy, a bit holier than almost everyone else, and likely to side with some weird issues, such as when he joined "Second Lady" (and I use the word "lady" very, very, VERY loosely here) Lynne Cheney and "morality czar" (and dominatrix-loving, millions-lost-in-casinos) William "Bill" Bennett in an effort to turn college campuses to the right while discriminating against those educators who don't think it's their job to tell students what to think, how to vote, and that their grades will be hurt if they don't believe in the same God as James Dobson and Jerry Falwell.

Quite seriously, I think a HUGE part of why Lieberman has turned so far to the right - and not simply because of 9-11 and his zealot's hatred of Muslims - lies right in the lap of the 2000 presidential election. Lieberman blames then presidential candidate Al Gore for not winning (and the American people for not choosing Joementum himself) which turned him into a sore loser and then he jumped on the ultra-hawk bandwagon, with all of his high praise for Bush and other tighty righties, SOLELY to advance his own position.

His pouting brat sore loser attitude soured him further to Dems after the capitulation to rigged voting so he had to realize Democrats would never support another candidacy for him - and they didn't; Republican money returned him to his Senate job when Dems wanted to flush the turd. Also, he saw the writing on the wall in terms of how completely the fascist right was willing to go to keep a Jew from the White House; to keep from becoming nothing more than a footnote to history, he switched sides. While the right will never like him, they might be willing to hold their nose to let him be a bridesmaid (VP) but never the bride (President).

Race and Gender NOT Just Dem Issues, IMHO

According to this MSNBC happy horseshit, race and gender are becoming big factors in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign. But that rather IGNORES the fact that race and gender have ALWAYS been big factors on the right - and the farther right you go, the bigger the factor - which have pretty much FORCED them to be issues for anyone who doesn't think blacks, women, and other minorities don't belong strictly doing the dirty work for the wealthier white so-called Christians.

BTW, I hate that in 2008, we're discussing gender and race as much as we are. When I was a wee child in the 60s, I envisioned a time when these would not be big issues. Apparently, I was wrong.

But it's just as wrong to pretend that race and gender are only issues for Dems when the Republicans have never put forth a serious candidate of color and one who doesn't have a penis. This speaks VOLUMES about their fears and dark desires, IMHO.

Say No To Dirty Tricks, Voters Kept From Voting, And "Washington Business As Usual"

With many of the reports, including that provided at All Things Democrat last week by Ricky Shambles, about the dirty tricks that may have been played in the Iowa Caucuses to drive the anti-Hillary/anti-Clinton vote in favor of others, I can't say I'm surprised. But I'm far from happy.

This year, perhaps more than ANY other, we need to combine our commitment to be active, informed citizens who demand the best (and hold them to account when we get less) from our elected leaders at the same time we dearly need to elect a president honestly, fairly, and without any of the nasty stuff we've seen in previous elections, especially that of the Bush-Cheney/Republican-Win-At-Any-Cost Sleaze team (and I do not believe most normal Republicans like this kind of thing anymore than the rest of us) in 2000 and 2004.

From here on, we can't just sit back and let Washington work as it does, because we know that the way it works is pretty corrupt, pretty nasty, and pretty much slanted at billionaires and fatcat/corporate interests rather than in the "Mom and Dad America" politicians like to talk about at election time. So we're going to have to work a great deal harder to get Washington working right again and we have to be pretty damned selective about who we put there. No more "anybody but (this person)" mentality and no more dirty games.

Mind you, Democrats (and others) have pulled nasty tricks, too. But we don't want them from ANYONE. I want the people I elect (and those who help elect them) to operate better than that. You should, too.

Also, every American with the right to vote not only should vote, but should NEVER be kept from voting by dirty tricks like we saw in Florida in 2000 (and ever since) and in Ohio in 2004.

So I ask myself, as I ask you, to do your best to keep dirty tricks away from the process, even at our lowly voter level and, should you see someone kept from voting who has the right to vote, don't just shake your head and walk away. Stand up, speak out. We may not always be able to depend on Washington to behave itself so, until we can force them to do better, WE have to be the better people. It can start one American at a time. And it must.

I'm game. Will you join me?

Iowa, Caucuses, And "There's Got To Be A Better Way"

If you listen to the media focusing on the presidential vote that will happen just over 10 months from now, it's "all Iowa, all the time."

Now, Iowa's voters count as much as any groups, but I still find it rather offensive to see Iowa's voters treated like the real race is almost over once the caucus votes are counted Thursday (tomorrow).

Perhaps it's still the very bitter taste left in my mouth by the way Iowans - and the media reporting on it - treated Democrat (and now DNC chairman) prez candidate Howard Dean in 2004; where one corny "Yeeee-haaaaw" derailed a campaign that got average Americans participating with their money and their letter writing in a way we had never seen before.

The reality is that Iowa is

a) the whitest state in the nation which is increasingly NOT white bread,
b) should have no greater power to decide the race than any other,
c) their voters constitute a hardly whopping 6/100ths of 1 percent of this nation's entire voting population
d) Iowa does NOT have the market cornered on the greatest of American values
e) January is JUST too damned early to decide who the best candidates for each party are

Your opinion?

Primary Colors

You don't have to live in one of the two whitest states in the union to vote in primaries or caucuses this Thursday. As Ricky Shambles points out at All Things Democrat, MySpace is running its own primary through 11:59 PM tonight (Wed, 1/2). However, you have to join to vote so....

The Last Debate of 2007

Argh. So many debates, so long before the actual vote is NOT a good thing.

If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend Ralph's list of questions he'd like to see addressed at round two of the Iowa debates: the Dems in the last debate of 2007. [How do I nominate Ralph to be the next moderator?]

I'm listening to the debate now though it caught me by surprise. CNN kept saying the debate was Thursday night but at 2 PM ET, they fed us some of the worst audio possible (sounds like it was recorded in my washing machine). However, what I noted FIRST were these points:

-- CNN made a big and rather demeaning deal of the Dem senator candidates who took private jets to rush to Iowa after voting on the energy bill today as in "oh, really, they couldn't save energy going together by plane?" - I don't mind the question but why the hell is this standard NEVER, EVER applied to the Bushies or the Republicans in general? We ALL need to be smarter about energy use; if only Democrats do it, it won't work.

-- Why were Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich kept OUT of the Dem debate today (which CNN applauded as a smart move) yet Alan Keyes (who? well, we last saw him mosh pitting in the 96 Republican presidential race), who not even Republicans seemed to know was running until last night, allowed to debate in the GOP version?

-- If CNN thinks it's "helping America" with its "approval meter" showing where viewers like and dislike debate points by candidate, they're screwier than their Kyra Philips is dumb as denuded dirt.

-- Moving up the caucuses and primaries is a massive mistake; we'll eliminate good candidates way too early which, sadly, may be the point.

No More Colbert Presidency

Gee, and we all just thought Stephen Colbert was such a serious candidate, too. Yet I'd still embrace him over the Republicans and one of the Dems running.

Maureen Dowd: "A Cat Without Whiskers"

[Note: Did you catch Dick Cheney pretty much endorsing McCain on one of his whistlestops late this past week? Urgh.]

MoDo takes on John McCain and his almost outlandishly named campaign vehicle, "The Straight Talk Express" (straight, perhaps, as in straight into hell):

SEATTLE -- So some guy stands up after John McCain’s luncheon speech here yesterday to a group of business types and asks him a question.

“I’ve seen in the press where in your run for the presidency, you’ve been sucking up to the religious right,” the man said, adding: “I was just wondering how soon do you predict a Republican candidate for president will start sucking up to the old Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party?”

Mr. McCain listened with his eyes downcast, then looked the man in the eye, smiled and replied: “I’m probably going to get in trouble, but what’s wrong with sucking up to everybody?” It was a flash of the old McCain, and the audience laughed.

Certainly, the senator has tried to worm his way into the affections of W. and the religious right: the Discovery Institute, a group that tries to derail Darwinism and promote the teaching of Intelligent Design, helped present the lunch, dismaying liberal bloggers who have tracked Mr. McCain’s devolution on evolution.

A reporter asked the senator if his pandering on Roe v. Wade had made him “the darling and candidate of the ultra right wing?” ( In South Carolina earlier this week, he tried to get more evangelical street cred by advocating upending Roe v. Wade.) “I dispute that assertion,” he replied. “I believe that it was Dr. Dobson recently who said that he prayed that I would not receive the Republican nomination. I was just over at Starbucks this morning. and I talk everywhere, and I try to reach out to everyone.”

But there’s one huge group that he’s not pandering to: Americans.

Most Americans are sick and tired of watching things go hideously backward in Iraq and Afghanistan, and want someone to show them the way out. Mr. McCain is stuck on the bridge of a sinking policy with W. and Dick Cheney, who showed again this week that there is no bottom to his lunacy. The senator supported a war that didn’t need to be fought and is a cheerleader for a surge that won’t work.

It has left Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, once the most spontaneous of campaigners, off balance. He’s like a cat without its whiskers. When the moderator broached the subject of Iraq after lunch, Mr. McCain grimaced, stuck out his tongue a little and said sarcastically, “Thanks.”

Defending his stance, he sounds like a Bill Gates robot prototype, repeating in a monotone: “I believe we’ve got a new strategy and it can succeed. I can’t guarantee success. But I do believe firmly that if we get out now we risk chaos and genocide in the region.”

He was asked about Britain’s decision to withdraw 1,600 troops from Iraq. “Tony Blair, the prime minister, has shown great political courage,” Mr. McCain said. “He has literally sacrificed his political career because of Iraq, my friends,” because he thought “it was the right thing to do.”

Read the rest here and MoDo's right: McCain really is into far right GOP pandering.

How About An Al Gore-Barack Obama Ticket?

I dunno. To me, that sounds fairly appealing. It would give Obama a good shot at the presidency in four to eight years and, say what you want about Al (up for an Oscar tomorrow and a Nobel Prize in April, I believe), it sure looks like he won the 2000 presidential election, James Baker and the U.S. Supreme Court aside.

BTW, here's the link to DraftGore.

(Psssst: Can you tell Hillary Clinton makes me ill?)

Right Nutwing Wants Jeb Bush To Run (A/K/A Can't We Be Done With Dynasties?)

You know, I would think that just about everyone - the world over - would be damned sick of having a Bush in office. ANY Bush, ANY office. But no, some of the extreme right nutwing wants Jeb Bush to run for president in 2008.

Have I mentioned these people are not only psychotic but that they actively plot the pathological and quite miserable destruction of both the U.S. and the world? I did? Oh, okay.

(But here's something scary from the Eleanor Clift Newsweek column I cited above: Jeb is on a short list for V.P. for 2008. Oh goody: we'll be seeing al Qaeda as responsible for the deaths of other Terri Schiavos.)

Maureen Dowd: "Obama's Big Screen Test"

Maureen Dowd just reminds us that this is going to be an interesting Democratic primary season. While it's not one I necessarily want determined by Hollywood, I'd prefer Hollywood to Rove- and Cheneywood. Rozius gives us all the Dowd that's fit to print, but here's a big snip:

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif.- Hillary is not David Geffen’s dreamgirl.

“Whoever is the nominee is going to win, so the stakes are very high,” says Mr. Geffen, the Hollywood mogul and sultan of “Dreamgirls,” as he sits by a crackling fire beneath a Jasper Johns flag and a matched pair of de Koonings in the house that Jack Warner built (which old-time Hollywood stars joked was the house that God would have built). “Not since the Vietnam War has there been this level of disappointment in the behavior of America throughout the world, and I don’t think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is — and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? — can bring the country together.

“Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. Americans are dying every day in Iraq. And I’m tired of hearing James Carville on television.”

Barack Obama has made an entrance in Hollywood unmatched since Scarlett O’Hara swept into the Twelve Oaks barbecue. Instead of the Tarleton twins, the Illinois senator is flirting with the Dreamworks trio: Mr. Geffen, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, who gave him a party last night that raised $1.3 million and Hillary’s hackles.

She didn’t stand outside the gates to the Geffen mansion, where glitterati wolfed down Wolfgang Puck savories, singing the Jennifer Hudson protest anthem “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going.” But she’s not exactly Little Miss Sunshine, either. Hillary loyalists have hissed at defecting donors to remember the good old days of jumping on the Lincoln Bedroom bed.

“Hillary is livid that Obama’s getting the first big fund-raiser here,” one friend of hers said.

Who can pay attention to the Oscar battle between “The Queen” and “Dreamgirls” when you’ve got a political battle between a Queen and a Dreamboy?

Terry McAuliffe and First Groupie Bill have tried to hoard the best A.T.M. machine in politics for the Missus, but there’s some Clinton fatigue among fatigued Clinton donors, who fret that Bill will “pull the focus” and shelve his wife’s campaign.

“I don’t think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person,” Mr. Geffen says, adding that if Republicans are digging up dirt, they’ll wait until Hillary’s the nominee to use it. “I think they believe she’s the easiest to defeat.”

She is overproduced and overscripted. “It’s not a very big thing to say, ‘I made a mistake’ on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can’t,” Mr. Geffen says. “She’s so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base. I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms.”

The babble here is not about “Babel”; it’s about the battle of the billionaires. Not only have Ron Burkle and David Geffen been vying to buy The Los Angeles Times — they have been vying to raise money for competing candidates. Mr. Burkle, a supermarket magnate, is close to the Clintons, and is helping Hillary parry Barry Obama by arranging a fund-raiser for her in March, with a contribution from Mr. Spielberg.

Did Mr. Spielberg get in trouble with the Clintons for helping Senator Obama? “Yes,” Mr. Geffen replies, slyly. Can Obambi stand up to Clinton Inc.? “I hope so,” he says, “because that machine is going to be very unpleasant and unattractive and effective.”

Read it all here.

And yeah, Hillary does not warm the cockles of my heart. Nor, frankly, does Carville & Company. But Bill? Well, I'd do another four years of Bill. IF I had to.

Actually, after all these years of Bush & Cheney, there are whole months when dictatorships start to look good by comparison. ::sigh::

Paul Krugman: "Wrong Is Right"

This may vie for one of my top 10 favorite Paul Krugman columns of all time. Read it all at Rozius, but here's a snip:

Many people are perplexed by the uproar over Senator Hillary Clinton’s refusal to say, as former Senator John Edwards has, that she was wrong to vote for the Iraq war resolution. Why is it so important to admit past error? And yes, it was an error — she may not have intended to cast a vote for war, but the fact is the resolution did lead to war; she may not have believed that President Bush would abuse the power he was granted, but the fact is he did.

The answer can be summed up in two words: heckuva job. Or, if you want a longer version: Medals of Freedom to George Tenet, who said Saddam had W.M.D., Tommy Franks, who failed to secure Iraq, and Paul Bremer, who botched the occupation.

For the last six years we have been ruled by men who are pathologically incapable of owning up to mistakes. And this pathology has had real, disastrous consequences. The situation in Iraq might not be quite so dire — and we might even have succeeded in stabilizing Afghanistan — if Mr. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney had been willing to admit early on that things weren’t going well or that their handpicked appointees weren’t the right people for the job.

The experience of Bush-style governance, together with revulsion at the way Karl Rove turned refusal to admit error into a political principle, is the main reason those now-famous three words from Mr. Edwards — “I was wrong” — matter so much to the Democratic base.

The base is remarkably forgiving toward Democrats who supported the war. But the base and, I believe, the country want someone in the White House who doesn’t sound like another George Bush. That is, they want someone who doesn’t suffer from an infallibility complex, who can admit mistakes and learn from them.

And there’s another reason the admission by Mr. Edwards that he was wrong is important. If we want to avoid future quagmires, we need a president who is willing to fight the inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom on foreign policy, which still — in spite of all that has happened — equates hawkishness with seriousness about national security, and treats those who got Iraq right as somehow unsound. By admitting his own error, Mr. Edwards makes it more credible that he would listen to a wider range of views.

[...]And as for Rudy Giuliani, there are so many examples of his inability to accept criticism that it’s hard to choose.

Here’s an incident from 1997. When New York magazine placed ads on city buses declaring that the publication was “possibly the only good thing in New York Rudy hasn’t taken credit for,” the then-mayor ordered the ads removed — and when a judge ordered the ads placed back on, he appealed the decision all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.

Now imagine how Mr. Giuliani would react on being told, say, that his choice to head Homeland Security is actually a crook. Oh, wait.

But back to Mrs. Clinton’s problem. For some reason she and her advisers failed to grasp just how fed up the country is with arrogant politicians who can do no wrong. I don’t think she falls in that category; but her campaign somehow thought it was still a good idea to follow Karl Rove’s playbook, which says that you should never, ever admit to a mistake. And that playbook has led them into a political trap.

Read it all here.

Apparently John McCain's Loyal Constituents Are Getting Tired Of His Rapid Mood Swings, Too

There was a time when John McCain - and other one time moderates like former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani - would openly mock the miserable likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others who piously smile while they spew radical hate. Now, of course, John - and Rudy - can't embrace the Falwells, the Robertsons, the Dobsons fast enough - and that alone should send a very loud warning bell ringing for all.

From Max Blumenthal writing at The Nation:

Just as the presidential nomination process begins in earnest, Senator John McCain has suffered a stinging defeat in his home state. For the Republican media darling declared recently by Chris Matthews to be the one candidate who "deserves the presidency," it was an unlikely loss, and so far it has gone unheralded by the national press corps that McCain once half-jokingly called "my base." This defeat was the handiwork of his presumed actual political base--a ragtag band of local conservative activists led by a 65-year-old retired IBM middle manager named Rob Haney.

Who is Rob Haney? He is the Republican state committeeman in Arizona's District 11, McCain's home district. In the past, Haney and his fellow committee members would meet from time to time to review their annual budget, vote on bylaws and pass resolutions. If anyone represents Arizona's Republican Party, advancing the causes of faith, family and freedom, it is the folks from District 11. Yet their importance, let alone their existence, seemed to matter little to their state's famous and ambitious senior senator.

All that changed when Haney organized a revolt that hardly needed encouragement. "People would be calling in to [state committee] headquarters every week, absolutely enraged, threatening to leave the party because of some comments McCain made," Haney told me. "The guy has no core, his only principle is winning the presidency. He likes to call his campaign the 'straight talk express.' Well, down here we call it the 'forked tongue express.'"