Multi Medium

Somewhere Under The Rainbow

My ridiculously talented almost-cousin Malcolm’s view of the GOP and McCain-Palin ticket.  Works for me.

(Click on image for full-size version)

Add comment September 1st, 2008 at 04:59pm Posted by Eli

With Us On Everything Except The War

Pachacutec calls them on it:

We’ve been hearing from the Senate leadership since 2006 that Joe Lieberman is “with us on everything but the war.” We asked Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin to offer an example a piece of critical legislation the Senate had passed with Joe Lieberman’s assistance. The role of the Majority Whip is to count caucus votes and enforce party voting discipline.

Senator Durbin pointedly declined to answer the question and characterized it as illegitimate, ultimately putting his hand in front of the camera and asking me to account for my whereabouts and clothing as of three o’clock yesterday afternoon, as an example of - from his perspective - putting someone on the spot unfairly.

I’m not so sure he’s used to answering questions from people who do … journalism.

Putting him on the spot unfairly?  If Lieberman is with us on everything except the war, then all Durbin had to do is think of one vote about something other than the war.  Surely he should be able to do that in his sleep, right?

I mean, unless it’s total bullshit, of course.

Add comment August 28th, 2008 at 10:17pm Posted by Eli

Lieberman Looks Back To The Future

Shorter Joe Lieberman:

When the terrorists hit us in 2009, we need to have a president who is willing to seize unprecedented unconstitutional powers for his own and his party’s gain, and John McCain is that man.

That is what “keeping us safe” has become code for, isn’t it?

4 comments June 30th, 2008 at 09:05am Posted by Eli

The Obama Treatment?

“The Johnson Treatment,” by George Tames

I do so hope this is true…

In a move that could further imperil his already weakened status in the Democratic Caucus and fuel talk about his split loyalties, Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) Wednesday took center stage in the GOP’s mounting attacks on the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

Lieberman participated in a media conference call Wednesday morning organized by House Minority Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) criticizing Obama’s stance on the Middle East.

Lieberman’s criticisms came in response to Obama’s speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which was his first major address after claiming his party’s nomination late Tuesday night.

(…)

[D]uring a Senate vote Wednesday, Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.

While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating.

Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.

Still, Obama and Lieberman seemed to be trying to keep the back-and-forth congenial as they both patted each other on the back during and after the exchange.

(…)

While Lieberman Wednesday declined to say whether he would continue acting as a surrogate for McCain in attacking Obama, he stated that he would not put his work in Congress in jeopardy by participating in the McCain campaign.

“Obviously I support Sen. McCain … but I can only do so much as long as it doesn’t interfere with what I’m doing here,” Lieberman said.

When asked whether his activities should bring his role as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee into question, Lieberman said he would leave that decision up to the Democratic Caucus. “That’s up to my colleagues,” he said.

Nobody puts Lieby in the corner!

I am very, very happy to see Obama finally taking on the Democrats’ sacred monster, Senator With-Us-On-Everything-But-The-War (and the judiciary, and torture, and choice, and who the next president should be, and…).  As Kagro notes, Short Ride may finally be realizing that he won’t get a free ride as a McCain campaign surrogate.

1 comment June 5th, 2008 at 11:27am Posted by Eli

Hagee Holocaust Comments Don’t Bother Lieberman

I wonder if Lieberman’s purpose in life now is to make McCain look good by comparison:

Senator Joseph Lieberman is scheduled to headline Pastor John Hagee’s 2008 Christians United For Israel Washington-Israel Summit this July 22. In accepting Hagee’s invitation, Lieberman became the most senior elected representative confirmed to appear at the annual gala. Last year, when Lieberman spoke at Hagee’s summit, he compared the Texas televangelist to the biblical prophet Moses, dubbing him “an Ish Elochim,” or “a man of God.” Unless he rescinds his pledge to appear at this year’s summit, Lieberman can be expected to deliver another soul-stirring tribute.

Hagee’s vitriolic condemnation of Catholicism, his jeremiad declaring Hurricane Katrina divine punishment for New Orleans’ hosting of a “homosexual rally,” and his generally disturbing apocalyptic theology became national news last February when John McCain accepted his endorsement in a widely publicized ceremony.

While initially resisting pressure to reject Hagee’s endorsement, McCain finally ended his relationship with Hagee when a sermon by the preacher describing the Holocaust as the will of God registered on the mainstream media’s radar (Hear the now-infamous sermon here).

(…)

Lieberman was aware of many of Hagee’s vile statements well before McCain renounced him. On May 13, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly asked Lieberman to respond the gathering criticism of Hagee’s remarks. But instead of distancing himself from Hagee’s views as McCain had, Lieberman launched into a spirited defense of the televangelist, describing him as someone who “represents a lot of people in this country, particularly Christians who care about the state of Israel.”

At the time, prior to McCain’s sweeping renunciation, Lieberman could have reasonably claimed to be unaware of the preacher’s repugnant views on the Holocaust. Now, he has no excuse for ignorance….

So why the silence? Why won’t Lieberman, who is married to the daughter of Holocaust survivors, end his relationship with Hagee as well? … If Lieberman plans to continue touting his moral fiber and independence as his greatest assets, he must renounce the hate-mongering Hagee.

Wow.  So describing the Holocaust as essentially a good thing - or at least useful - and Hitler as God’s “hunter” driving the Jews to Israel is more offensive to John McCain than to Joe Lieberman?

I’m already in favor of booting Joe out of the Democratic Party - now I’m wondering if he can be excommunicated from Judaism as well. (”He’s with us on everything except the Holocaust…”)

1 comment May 27th, 2008 at 07:19am Posted by Eli

All The Iraqis Tell Me So, But What Do All The Iraqis Know?

It’s the Battle Of The Unscientific Polls!

On CNN’s American Morning earlier today, Kyra Phillips reported that during a recent trip to Baghdad “dozens of Iraqi soldiers and dozens of students at Baghdad university” told her that they “don’t want to see a Republican president.” “Out of every single one that I talked to, one person said they supported John McCain,” said Phillips.

Asked to respond, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who is an ardent supporter of McCain, dismissed what the Iraqis told Phillips as an “unscientific poll.” He claimed that on all the visits he’s made to Iraq, “the Iraqi people on the street, the Iraqi military, the Iraqi government that I’ve talked to, don’t want us to just pick up and leave.”

Lieberman then noted that the Iraqis don’t want the U.S. “to stay there forever,” which he claimed was consistent with McCain’s position on Iraq.

The Iraqi people on the street, the Iraqi military, the Iraqi government that I’ve talked to, don’t want us to just pick up and leave, which is what Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton have been advocating. They want us, obviously, not to stay there forever. Sen. McCain wants the war to stop and to have us pull back into bases and be on a path, a reasonable path of withdrawal.

As Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) told ThinkProgress last year, congressional trips like Lieberman’s are shrouded in a “Green Zone fog” that makes it hard to get a real sense of the reality on the ground. But, as Phillips noted during her March report from Baghdad, she didn’t have a public affairs official present when she interviewed the soldiers and students, which she says allowed for an “uncensored” and “candid” two-hour discussion.

Additionally, in making the claim that like the Iraqis, McCain doesn’t want us “to stay there forever,” Lieberman completely ignores the fact that McCain has said it is “fine” with him for the U.S. to stay in Iraq for 100 years, which would essentially be forever. Also, while the Iraqi people have rejected permanent U.S. bases in the country, McCain has said they may be “necessary.”

Lieberman isn’t even on the same planet as reality.  Hell, even Ellen Tauscher says he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Add comment May 12th, 2008 at 10:16pm Posted by Eli

Lieberman’s Big But

Once again, I am left to wonder just what on Earth our party’s so-called “leadership” is thinking…

There is much speculation that the Democrats will run Mr. Lieberman out of their caucus (he now sits with Democrats and votes with them on most issues not related to the war) if they widen their margin in the Senate after the November elections. But Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Democratic leader, has pledged that he would not disown Mr. Lieberman under those circumstances and said he considered him a good friend.

A member of the Senate Democratic leadership, who insisted on not being identified, said: “The bloggers want us to get rid of him. It ain’t happening.” He added: “We need every vote. He’s with us on everything but the war.”

For most Democrats, however, that’s a pretty big “but.”

Um, yeah.  I should say so.  And the war is hardly the only issue that Lieberman has sided with the Republicans on (*cough cough Alito cough cough cough*).  I’d like to think that they’re just talking nice so Joe won’t stab them in the back before they can safely get rid of him, but I know better.

The story also contained this rather inexplicable quote:

Mr. Lieberman strayed so far from the Democratic fold on Iraq that his own party disowned him in 2006, supporting an antiwar candidate, Ned Lamont, against him in the Connecticut Senate primary.

Um, wait, when did this happen?  The party’s base supported Lamont in the primary, as well as a few individuals, but the party leadership was neutral at best. Hell, even after the primary the Democratic party didn’t give Lamont much help, even though he was officially their candidate.

Add comment April 20th, 2008 at 02:13pm Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Month

Joe Lieberman.  Again.

Joe has also earned the much-coveted Lifetime Wanker Achievement Award.

Add comment March 30th, 2008 at 02:31pm Posted by Eli

I Agree With McCain On Something!

We want the same thing:

When asked about Joe Lieberman (who has endorsed McCain), he responded:

I would definitely want Joe Lieberman to play a part — particularly in national security issues — in my administration.

Me too! It would get Joe’s sorry ass out of the Senate four years early, and replace him with a Democrat (Lamont?) two years early. Awesome.

Sure, Lieberman would be in the cabinet, but it’s not like McCain’s SecDef or DHS wasn’t going to be crazy and unqualified anyway.

4 comments January 4th, 2008 at 09:58pm Posted by Eli

If Of The Week

Independent Straight-Talking Maverick John McCain (with his BFF Joe Lieberman standing proudly behind him) responding to a question about Dubya keeping troops in Iraq for the next 50 years:

Make it a hundred. We’ve been in South Korea… we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans… are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

Okay, so technically it’s an As Long As rather than an If, but it amounts to the same thing.

John, if Americans weren’t being wounded or killed, you wouldn’t have gotten that question in the first place. I can just as easily say that as long as Republicans don’t lie, cheat, steal, and generally make a mockery of American laws and values, I would be fine with keeping them in the White House for the next hundred years.

1 comment January 3rd, 2008 at 11:10pm Posted by Eli

Traitor Joe Gets His Comeuppance

Well, after stabbing the Democratic Party in the back yet again, this time by endorsing a Republican for president, it should come as no surprise that Lieberman would take some heat from his former party.

Behold, as the ol’ boxer, Harry Reid, unleashes The Most Savage Beatdown Of All Time:

“I have the greatest respect for Joe, but I simply have to disagree with his decision to endorse Senator McCain,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, told CNN in a written statement.

BAM! Take THAT, Joe! He won’t soon recover from that one, I can assure you.

Sure, Harry could have said he strongly disagreed, but that would have just been piling on. No need, after dismantling the poor man so thoroughly. Brutal, yet classy.

1 comment December 17th, 2007 at 11:50am Posted by Eli

The Endorsement We’ve All Been Waiting For

Joe Lieberman comes out for…

Democratic and Republican sources say that Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut and fierce supporter of the war in Iraq, will formally endorse Sen. John McCain tomorrow in New Hampshire.

What? You didn’t think Joe was going to endorse a Democrat, did you?

Ambinder seems to think that this is somehow good news for McCain:

The endorsement could help McCain with independents in the state. Combine that with news that Rudy Giuliani is scaling back his advertising buy there, that the Boston Globe endorsed McCain, and that McCain’s rivals are spending most of their time in Iowa.

The endorsement is further evidence of Lieberman’s slow drift to the right in American politics and is bound to generate intense anger among Democrats who support him. But Lieberman and McCain have often walked in lockstep together on the prosecution of the war, have traveled to Iraq together, and have worked together on domestic issues like climate change.

Because if there’s one thing New Hampshire voters like, it’s pointless, bloody, unwinnable wars.

Ambinder adds that this will “heighten speculation that McCain might ask Lieberman to join his ticket.” To which I can only say, Oh, pleasepleaseplease.

UPDATE: Ari Melber is likewise unimpressed.

Senator Joe Lieberman will finally come clean on Monday, unleashing his inner-Republican to endorse the struggling campaign of Senator John McCain, according to several news reports. It is a bittersweet alliance for both men. Lieberman’s move confirms his critics’ longtime argument that he is a “Democrat in Name Only,” while McCain looks desperate by leaning on backers beyond the G.O.P. base in the homestretch of a partisan primary.

(…)

During his 2006 reelection campaign, Lieberman emphasized that he would support Democratic candidates in 2008. “I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008,” he said during a televised debate in July. Lieberman promptly backtracked after his reelection, announcing this January that he was “open” to supporting a Republican or Democrat for president, depending “on a whole range of issues.” By not even waiting to see who the Democrats nominate, now Lieberman is revealing that the issues aren’t important to him, either.

Joe Lieberman, Man Of Integrity™, may very well be the most dishonest man in Washington. And that’s saying something.

3 comments December 16th, 2007 at 05:02pm Posted by Eli

There They Go Again.

To Whom It May Concern:

Please make this go away forever.

Also, the flag-burning amendment.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Add comment December 10th, 2007 at 11:40pm Posted by Eli

Moral Victories And Supporting Our Troops

Not exactly unexpected (at least not by me), but the Republicans blocked bills to restore habeas corpus and the Webb Amendment to guarantee troops as much time out of Iraq as in it. In both cases they got 56 votes in favor, with a handful of Republicans voting with the Democrats, and not-even-pretending-to-be-a-Democrat-anymore Joe Lieberman voting against them.

The ACLU seems to think that just getting a majority of votes to restore habeas is some kind of great victory, but the only real victory would be to, y’know, actually restore habeas. Of course, even if the Democrats had been able to muster 60 votes on either bill, Dubya still would have vetoed, so the best bet really would have been to NEVER HAVE VOTED AGAINST HABEAS IN THE FIRST PLACE. But I digress.

The only positive that I see here, and the reason that trying to bring these bills to a vote is worthwhile, it that the Republicans have to go on record by voting against civil liberties, and voting against the well-being of the troops. If the Democrats are smart, they’ll force them to explain those votes over and over again in 2008 - especially the Webb Amendment, which should be devastating to the hypocrites who blather insincerely about how Democrats undermine our troops while Republicans support them.

The only thing better would be to force the Republicans to actually filibuster. I really can’t think of any good reason not to.

3 comments September 19th, 2007 at 09:34pm Posted by Eli

Voter’s Remorse

The Great Orange Satan decided to use some of the generous stipend he receives from Liberal Mastermind George Soros to commission a poll of CT voters to see if they would vote for Joe Lieberman again if they were granted a second chance. Let’s see how that turned out…

For whom did you vote for in the 2006 race for U.S. Senate, Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?

        Lieberman  Lamont  Schlesinger
All         49       42        9
Dem         34       62        4
Rep         67       10       23
Ind         53       41        6

If you could vote again for U.S. Senate, would you vote for Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?

        Lieberman  Lamont  Schlesinger
All         40       48       10
Dem         25       72        3
Rep         69        7       24
Ind         38       49        9

Gee, you’d think Joe’s Reasonable Centrist Moderateness would only attract Independent voters, not drive them away in droves. Why, for something like that to happen, it would almost have to mean that all those Bipartisan Rawks!/Give-The-Republicans-Everything-They-Want-Because-It’s-The-Civil-
Thing-To-Do concern trolls like Broder are Wrong About Everything, and that can’t be possible, can it?

I also like the fact that CT Republicans actually like Joe a little bit more now, and that his current Democratic numbers bear a striking resemblance to Dubya’s approval rating. I guess there are always some brain-dead Kool-Aid drinkers in every tribe.

Add comment September 13th, 2007 at 05:42pm Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Chutzpah

Joe Lieberman, “Independent Democrat”:

Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent who caucuses with Democrats, denounced a MoveOn.org ad in Monday’s New York Times questioning the credibility of Army Gen. David Petraeus, calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to distance themselves from the attack as well.

“The personal attack on Gen. David Petraeus launched today by MoveOn.org is an outrageous and despicable act of slander that every member of the Congress — Democrat and Republican — has a solemn responsibility to condemn,” Lieberman said in the statement.

“As a member of the Senate Democratic caucus, I therefore call on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to denounce Moveon.org in no uncertain terms for its vile attack on Gen. Petraeus,” Lieberman said. “General Petraeus deserves no less.”

Oh, that’s rich. Joe Lieberman, who hasn’t displayed a single shred of loyalty to the Democratic caucus and has undermined and voted against them at every turn, is now invoking his status as a “member of the Senate Democratic caucus” to tell the Democratic leadership what to do. What a sanctimonious, hypocritical toad.

(h/t tparty)

1 comment September 10th, 2007 at 09:33pm Posted by Eli

Mo’ Joe

I hate to belabor the point, but Lieberman is insane even by Republican standards:

[Iran] will never respond to sweet courteous requests unless they really believe that we’re gonna back it up with force. And one of these days if they don’t respond, and I hope it’s sooner than later, we’re gonna hafta do that.

Yes, that’s right, he’s not talking about another disastrous war as some kind of regrettable, tragic necessity, but rather a consummation devoutly to be wished. Jebus.

Did I mention he was on Hannity’s radio show when he said it?

1 comment July 14th, 2007 at 03:32pm Posted by Eli

Okay, Now He’s Just Messing With Us…

At a certain point, I think it ceased to be about some kind of political calculation; Lieberman has now dedicated himself to provoking us with ever more repellent statements:

Yesterday in an interview with right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) praised President Bush’s policies in Iraq and predicted that Bush will be remembered by historians as a great President:

HEWITT: Oh, that’s fascinating. Last question, how do you think history’s going to evaluate George W. Bush?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I personally believe look, mistakes were made, and I know the polls are down, but I think on the largest issue of our time, which is the rise of Islamist extremism, that he will be judged as a president who saw the threat, and in the midst of an unpopular war, he stuck with it. And so I think overall, over time, his ratings among the historians will be greater than his ratings in the polls today.

Ow, it burns, it buuuurrrrrns…

Add comment July 13th, 2007 at 11:59pm Posted by Eli

Is This What It Looks Like?

I often read about how the Bush administration’s use of stop-loss orders, shortened leaves, and extended tours will “break” the Army, but I’ve never been entirely sure what that meant in practical terms. They’ve been overextending and pushing harder and harder for at least a year or two since I first starting seeing that phrase, and we still have an Army, the troops haven’t spontaneously dissolved into goo or anything.

And then I see stories like this:

Florida soldier who enlisted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks plans to sue the military, fighting his fifth order to combat, according to a Local 6 report.

Twenty-six-year-old Erik Botta, who is a Port St. Lucie reservist, signed up for the service days after the Sept. 11 attacks. He did a tour in Afghanistan and three in Iraq, but he said enough is enough.

And now this:

A Bronx soldier who lost his stomach for war allegedly hired a hit man to shoot him in the leg so he wouldn’t have to go back to Iraq, prosecutors said yesterday.

(…)

He said [his wife] knew a man named Felix who would carry out the shooting for $500, officials said. She sent him a text message with the time and location. All Aponte had to do was stand there and suffer the pain.

“I smoked a cigarette and kept my eyes closed because I did not want to see it coming,” Aponte told police. “Next thing I know, I was shot in the knee.”

Yeah, I know the “breaking” will probably manifest more in terms of morale problems and plummeting effectiveness, not to mention increased brutality, but it’- interesting to see these stories of troops just saying “Enough!” in one way or another. Then again, maybe troops have been doing this kind of thing all along, and it’s the reporting that’s changing.

In any case, the circumstances of the first story make it clear why we need Jim Webb’s amendment to limit troop deployments: The Bush administration treats our troops like sweatshop laborers who just happen to have bullseyes on their backs.

Of course, the Republicans in Congress don’t care, and scum like Lieberman even have the nerve to claim that they’re the ones trying to give our soldiers a break.

2008 can’t come soon enough, and I hope the Republicans truly reap what they have sown.

2 comments July 13th, 2007 at 11:52am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Month

Joe Lieberman is truly one of the most despicable people in politics. First he goes on TV to talk about how great government surveillance is and denounce Democrats for their wussiness on national security and “petty partisan fighting” (in trying to investigate BushCo’s FISA violations), and now he gives rightwing site NewsMax an exclusive hit-piece interview about how George Soros is “wrong,” “destructive” and “anti-American,” and bashing the Democrats some more on being insufficiently terrified of terrorism.

The highlight of the NewsMax piece for me, though:

Powerful or not, what stands out about Lieberman is his decency.
Unlike most politicians, he refuses to engage in partisan bickering to
gain political advantage.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I suppose the question of whether or not he engages in “partisan bickering” is all a matter of which party you think he belongs to…

Add comment July 2nd, 2007 at 11:17am Posted by Eli

Because My Hatred Of Joe Lieberman Borders On The Irrational

As Howie Klein notes, Joementum is actually hosting a campaign fundraiser for a Republican candidate, Susan Collins of Maine. (Gee, that sure is strange - if the Democrats were to lose their Senate majority, wouldn’t he lose his committee chairmanship? Unless… nah.)

So to counter, Howie (and MoveOn as well, but I can’t find a link) is asking progressives to donate whatever they can to Collins’ opponent, Tom Allen, at the Blue America page, to offset any benefit Collins might get from Joe Lieberman’s slimy assistance. If you hate Lieberman as much as I do, if you believe that hatred of Lieberman cannot be considered anything but rational, then please pitch in to turn his participation in the Collins campaign into a net negative.

1 comment June 21st, 2007 at 11:41pm Posted by Eli

No No Confidence

I’m real late to the party on this one, since I’ve been traveling, but I just wanted to weigh in real quick and say that I don’t really care that the no confidence vote on Gonzo never made it past the Republican filibuster.

My reasoning is, there was no chance that the no confidence vote was ever going to have any effect at all on Dubya or Gonzo, so it didn’t really matter whether it passed or not. The important thing was to get everyone on the record as to where they stand on Gonzales, and by extension, the Bush administration’s complete politicization of the Justice Department. Now Democrat challengers can use it in their campaigns against Republican incumbents who voted against cloture. And more broadly, Democrats and their spokespersons can use it as yet another example of the Republican Party’s enthusiastic embrace of corruption. Not sure they will, but they can.

Amazingly, Arlen Specter actually put a vote where his mouth was in voting for cloture, so I’ll give him some minor kudos for that.

And not so amazingly, Lieberman voted against it. So, yeah, he’ll vote for cloture so a right-wing jerk can get a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the country, but not for a no-confidence vote on a criminal and/or incompetent Attorney General. Heckuva job, Joey.

1 comment June 12th, 2007 at 09:54pm Posted by Eli

NOLA/Broder Followups

For those of you who are appalled at Bush’s mean-spirited coldness towards New Orleans, Senator Landrieu has an online petition to apply some citizen pressure to get legislation passed to waive the 10% requirement, and then override Bush’s veto. Please go and sign it.

And for those of you who are appalled at David Broder’s mean-spirited cluelessness towards Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic Caucus has got his back. Even Lieberman. David, when even Joe Lieberman tells you you’re a dishonest, ignorant hack, you might want to listen.

3 comments April 27th, 2007 at 10:26am Posted by Eli

News Flash

Joe Lieberman still a humongous tool:

Lieberman, who ran for re-election in 2006 as an independent but still caucuses with Democrats, told CongressDaily Thursday that he would campaign for [Susan] Collins [R-ME], who stumped for Lieberman during his difficult re-election last year. News of Lieberman’s involvement in the Maine race came as Collins and Allen filed disclosure reports showing aggressive early fundraising. Collins raised $837,000 in the first quarter, including a $5,000 donation from Lieberman’s leadership PAC, and ended March with $1.2 million on hand.

I cannot shake the conviction that if Collins jumped ship and went over to the Democrats, Joe would drop her like a hot potato…

(Probably worth noting that if the Democrats consolidate their hold on the Senate next year, which is very likely, they would have very little reason not to kick him off his committees and generally make him miserable. Alas, they’ll probably do nothing of the sort.)

Add comment April 13th, 2007 at 05:19pm Posted by Eli

What I Want

Since the comments on my Look On The Bright Side post have turned to what we want to see in 2008, and don suggested that Joe Lieberman should have a role in the new administration, I thought I would offer up my dream scenario of how I would like to see things play out.

1) Gore runs for president and wins. This is paramount.

2) Gore’s veep is either Edwards, Clark, or Feingold if he’s willing. I might have considered Boxer, but not after she backed Lieberman.

3) Clark is SecDef if he’s not veep; otherwise either don’s suggestion of Murtha, or one of the retired generals who spoke out against the war in Iraq (Zinni, maybe?).

4) This is the beauty part, but it may require a little finesse and a lot of flattery: President Gore entices Lieberman into a cabinet position (head of DHS, maybe?), treats him like Dubya treated Christie Whitman, then fires him the day after the deadline passes to declare for the CT-SEN election for Joe’s seat (appointed replacements only serve until the next election cycle), leaving the field clear for Lamont. Also, someone takes a picture of Joe’s face at the exact moment when he realizes he’s screwed, and e-mails me a very high-resolution copy so I can make it the new Multi Medium banner.

2 comments February 12th, 2007 at 06:42pm Posted by Eli

Sentences I Never Thought I’d Type

I really enjoyed today’s Robert Novak column:

When President Bush called for a bipartisan “special advisory council” of congressional leaders on the war against terrorism in his State of the Union address, he had in his pocket a rude rejection from Democratic leaders. Thank you very much, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, but no thank you.

Three days earlier, Reid and Pelosi wrote a letter to the president turning down his offer (which was contained in his Jan. 10 speech on Iraq) to establish a council consisting of Democratic chairmen and ranking Republican members of the relevant committees. “We believe that Congress already has bipartisan structures in place,” they said, adding: “We look forward to working with you within existing structures.”

That could be the most overt snub of a presidential overture since Abraham Lincoln was told that Gen. George B. McClellan had retired for the night and could not see him. Courtesy aside, it shows that the self-confident Democratic leadership is uninterested in being cut into potentially disastrous outcomes in Iraq. It wants to function as a coordinate branch of government, not as friendly colleagues in the spirit of bipartisanship….

(…)

Bush made a mistake in attributing the idea to Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who as the Senate’s only self-identified Independent Democrat is estranged from his colleagues who are unmodified Democrats. These former comrades are not charmed by the prospect of Lieberman pontificating as a member of the “working group” by virtue of his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

(…)

On both sides, the prevailing attitude is that Bush looks like a president at bay. Statements made to me this week by two prominent political figures, one from each party, were so candid that these sources did not want to be quoted by name.

The Republican, a ranking House committee member, said: “The president and his aides are irrelevant and out of touch, removed from realizing what happened in the election.” A Democratic state party leader said that “Bush is in such bad shape that the result of the 2008 election is already decided.” In that atmosphere, pleas for consultation go nowhere.

Sweet, sweet music… from Novakula, of all people.

1 comment January 25th, 2007 at 06:49pm Posted by Eli

Progressivism A La Carte

By way of Swopa over at FDL, George Lakoff has a fascinating analysis of what happened in last month’s election. I was particularly intrigued and encouraged by his take on the conservative/centrist Democratic candidates (bold emphasis added):

There was a marvelous moment on NPR right after the election: Melissa Block asking newly elected representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina, a former NFL quarterback, what it meant for him to be a Democrat, given that he opposed abortion, opposed gay marriage, and supported gun ownership. “Well, it’s a reflection of my district,” Shuler replied.

What makes you a Democrat, Block asked. Shuler replied that it was what his parents and grandparents taught him: “A Democrat helps people that cannot help themselves.” What about fiscal responsibility? Earmarks like bridges to nowhere are irresponsible, Shuler replied; instead we should be spending money on education, social security, universal health care, preserving the environment, and renewable energy.

In short, what Shuler really cares about, what he was running on, and what he got elected on were progressive policies - even though he happened to hold some conservative positions that inoculated him in his district against charges of being “too liberal.”

Shuler is what I’ve been referring to as a “biconceptual,” someone who has progressive positions in certain areas of life and conservative positions in others. What makes Shuler a Democrat is that he identifies himself politically with the progressive values he ran on, despite having conservative positions he didn’t run on.

Bob Casey happens to be a Catholic who opposes abortion rights, but every position he ran on was a progressive position. Jon Tester believes in gun ownership in Montana, but that is not what he ran on. He ran on his progressive beliefs - by the dozen. These candidates ran primarily on their progressive positions. Despite having some conservative positions, they do not run primarily on their conservative positions. It was the progressive values they ran on that have given them their mandate.

(…)

Meanwhile, Harold Ford, Jr. lost in Tennessee for many reasons, including a racist ad campaign against him. But among the reasons was the way he campaigned. He ran enthusiastically using conservative code words: personal responsibility, strong moral values, character education, pro-family, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, eliminate abortions, and so on. In short, he had Heath Shuler’s positions, but unlike Shuler, he ran overtly on those positions and made a big deal of it, trying to convince good ole boy Tennesseans that he was one of them. As Shuler understood, if you really have those positions and really are part of your community in that way, you don’t have to say so…. What he was running on did not, in toto, fit any consistent moral worldview. He was trying to be too many things to too many people.

In short, the Democratic candidate who campaigned on conservative values lost; those who may have had such values, but campaigned on their progressive values, won.

Like Shuler and Casey, swing voters are biconceptuals, with both conservative and progressive worldviews in different areas of life and with both available for politics. How did these biconceptual candidates appeal to biconceptual swing voters? By taking progressive positions, and campaigning vigorously on them. How did this work? They activated the progressive values in the brains of swing voters.

This is the exact opposite of the DLC approach: Instead of emphasizing their similarities to Republicans, the successful centrist candidates glossed over them in favor of showing off their similarities to Democrats… or the Republicans’ similarities to criminals and buffoons. In other words, their centrism manifested as a sort of “negative” conservatism: As far as their public utterances were concerned, they weren’t for conservative values, they just weren’t for their progressive counterparts. So instead of saying, “Don’t be afraid, I love guns and hate gay marriage!”, they simply didn’t make an issue of them. Presumably if anyone asked, they would say where they stood, but it wasn’t what they campaigned on. The really encouraging thing is that voters responded to this approach and rejected the Ford approach of packaging themselves as Republican-lite, which puts the lie to the Republican/DLC spin that the election was somehow a grand victory for conservative values.

Of course, I would much rather have Democratic candidates who were in favor of choice and gay marriage. But if they’re in a red state or district and feel that those views would be electoral poison, then better to just keep quiet about them rather than publicly reinforce the Republican platform. This also cuts to the heart of why Democrats like Lieberman are so offensive to progressives even while agreeing with us on many issues: Their mix of policy views may be comparable to that of many other Democrats, but they repeatedly show off their conservative views, thus giving the Republicans phony “bipartisan” cover and undercutting their own party.

In today’s world, for better or worse, words speak louder than actions.

6 comments December 14th, 2006 at 08:19pm Posted by Eli

NARAL-Mindedness

Digby has (as usual) an excellent post on the ongoing NARAL selloutathon. He contrasts NARAL’s accommodationist, triangulating strategy with the NRA’s absolutism, which is a comparison that came to my mind in the wake of their lame excuses about not being able to account for cloture votes for the Alito nomination on their “scorecard.” Anyone think the NRA wouldn’t find a way to keep track of who voted for cloture for a zealously anti-gun Supreme Court nominee, or that any such congresscritter would be receiving any endorsements or thank-you letters(!) in the foreseeable future? Didn’t think so.

Digby focuses primarily on how NARAL is allowing the center to shift drastically to the right, but only alludes briefly and indirectly to the way they’re moving the left to the right. By giving their blessing to a pro-life definition of when life begins, and embracing the doctrine of fetal pain sensitivity (I really hope they’re wrong on that - I just automatically assume that any scientific claims coming from the far right are garbage, and I haven’t been wrong yet), they have given them the imprimatur of progressivity, allowing feckless or naive Democratic politicians to freely adopt without fear of any repercussions or stigma - after all, who wants to be to the left of NARAL on choice? Protecting choice is their whole raison d’etre, right?

And that, of course, is the problem. Any anti-choice position adopted by NARAL will not make NARAL more credible, because everyone thinks NARAL is an advocacy group for women’s choice. All it does is make that position look liberal and pro-choice, because it’s been endorsed by a liberal and pro-choice organization.

Now, with all that being said, can anyone explain to me why NARAL’s membership has not staged a revolt? I know NARAL chief Nancy Keenan is a Catholic who appears to be personally opposed to abortion (!!!), but is the membership really that oblivious to what’s being advocated in their name, or are they in on the scam? I would think that if they’re informed, committed progressives, they would have been lashing some serious back starting with NARAL’s endorsement of Joe Lieberman. Can anyone out there offer any insider perspective on this? Is NARAL just the pro-choice version of the rights-would-be-nice-but-what-we-really-want-are-tax-cuts Log Cabin Republicans?

3 comments December 8th, 2006 at 12:24pm Posted by Eli

Not So Fast, Joe.

I’ve been kind of withdrawn from the blogosphere this week; not entirely sure why. So I missed this very encouraging post from fester yesterday (festerday?) on how the Democrats can prevent Joe Lieberman from being the Big Important Wheel he surely thinks he’ll be:

1) A credible promise from Harry Reid, backed up by the money folks on and off line that disloyalty will result in backbench exile along with complete loss of seniority in 2008. Mark Schmidt at TAPPED looks at the initial outline of the 2008 Senate landscape:

These are the Senators of Class II, those whose seats will be up in 2008. There are 12 Democrats, and 21 Republicans…..The only vulnerable Dem in the class is Mary Landrieu of Louisiana…..That’s seven possible pick-ups in 2008, plus three more that could be picked up with the right candidate. And what if Harold Ford runs against Lamar Alexander in Tennessee? What if Susan Collins in Maine draws a strong opponent? What about Elizabeth Dole, whose image of competence is as shattered as Dick Cheney’s? That’s thirteen seats the Republicans have to worry about either a little or a lot. And almost no potential for gains.

(…)

Unfortunately Joe Lieberman will be in the Senate on Jan. 3, 2007, but he should be functionally irrelevant by 2009.

There were two more, but the first one was the big one. Of course, it requires the Democratic leadership to show discipline and hardassitude that they conspicuously did not display after Joe turned his back on the Democratic party. But if that Tapped analysis is correct, then it would be a very bad gamble indeed for Joe to flip. He would be a Republican hero (and probably committee chair) for two years, and then… nothing.

But then again, Joe may still be harboring delusions of presidency, and a misguided belief that all the girlies go crazy for a Bipartisan Statesman, especially the backstabbing kind. If he really thinks he can run and win on some kind of phony maverick “unity ticket” with John McCain in 2008, then he doesn’t have to worry about what the next Senate looks like. I say bring it on: I can’t think of a better way to keep McCain out of the White House.

3 comments November 9th, 2006 at 10:03pm Posted by Eli

House Of Murtha

From the New York Observer’s Politicker blog, by way of Atrios, we learn that John Murtha has said that he would campaign for Ned Lamont if asked. I haven’t seen a whole lot of commentary on this, but I think this is huge, and Lamont must take him up on it.

I’m not saying this because Murtha is a darling of the left right now for his antiwar stance; in fact, my reasoning is almost exactly the opposite: Lamont needs Murtha to campaign for him precisely because Murtha is so far to the right. One of Lieberman’s favorite myths about himself that he tries to peddle to voters is that he’s some kind of principled bipartisan moderate, and that he’s being purged by an ideologically intolerant Democratic party (and/or rabid left-wing bloggers). John Murtha is probably to the right of Lieberman on most issues except the war, and yet his behavior is the exact opposite: He doesn’t suck up to the president, he doesn’t parrot Republican talking points, and he speaks out forcefully against the war and generally kicks Republicans’ butts.

I believe that if a genuine principled moderate like Murtha campaigns for Lamont, it will drive the message home that Lieberman is not a principled moderate, but a Republican suckup; and that capitulation is not bipartisanship. Murtha’s support will be much more difficult to dismiss than that of anyone else who has campaigned for Ned, because he is so much harder to paint as a member of the Radical Unhinged Angry Left Trying To Purge All Moderates From The Congress. Not that Lieberman and the Republicans won’t try, of course.

Add comment September 2nd, 2006 at 10:20am Posted by Eli