“Waaaa… Waaaa…. Waaaa….”

That’s the sound of Joe Lieberman who’s bitching and moaning about how so many Democrats aren’t supporting him in his Senatorial re-election bid. There’s an editorial in the Washington Post today that’s a sort of excellent footnote to David Broder’s Op-Ed piece on the 18th about Joe Lieberman’s apparent anger over the fact that he has a Democratic challenger for his seat. In Broder’s article, it sounds like Liebermann would do away with the primary process if he could. His feeling is that since he’s a “popular incumbent Democrat,” he should basically just be given his seat. Sorry, Joe. Don’t work like that.

Joe’s challenger, Ned Lamont, was (according to Broder) “infuriated” with Lieberman’s contention that those who were critical of the Iraq war were “undermining the president,” [sic]. Lamont’s rebuttal to that comment was to launch his own Senatorial campaign. From Broder’s article: “”My opponent says it broke Democratic unity,” Lieberman said. “Well, dammit, I wasn’t thinking about Democratic unity. It was a moment to put the national interest above partisan interest.” Lieberman then went on to talk about how the Democratic party has to accept different views on things instead of everyone being in lock-step, etc. etc. etc…

Here’s the thing, Joe… Can I call you Joe? OK, here’s the thing… There are two very visible Democratic Senators at the moment who supposedly “support the war,” which I am now going to start calling an occupation since I have been convinced by Thom Hartman that the “Iraq War” was, indeed, finished on the day that Bush declared that “major combat operations have ended.” That was the end of the war — leaders killed or jailed, military defeated, etc. End of the “war,” start of the “occupation.” Exactly. So here we have two very visible Democratic Senators — Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton — claiming that they support the war. I have problems with each of them. With each of you, Joe (I’ll talk to Hillary later). It is one thing to say you support the “war.” It is another to say that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is “undermining the president.” Well, I have a problem with that word… Undermining… See, it’s a Hannity word. It’s a Limbaugh word. It’s a right-wing word. And then there’s the matter of your questionable voting record in the Senate and your public distortions of that record. It seems every time you open your mouth, we hear a Republican. And there’s nothing wrong with that if that’s what the people of your state want. So why not just stop whining and complaining and accept that you have a challenger who might not agree with you. Isn’t it the right of the people to decide whether or not they want someone who supports the occupation representing them? As for Hillary, I find it odd that she’s trying to tell all the Democrats to step in line behind her, and you’re telling them that “Democratic unity” is a dirty word.

It’s all very confusing, and I think the problem is the times we’re in. These are times where, to save the planet, to save the US, to save the middle class, to save our boys and girls overseas, and to possibly save the world from a new nuclear arms race, Democrats need some kind of unity, which is why Lieberman is facing a primary opponent. The question is, what kind of unity should the Democrats have? Where on the scale between left and middle-of-the-road should they reside? As far as I’m concerned, Hillary and the Democratic Leadership Council have been calling the shots in the party for the last several election cycles, and we all know how successful Democrats have been in the new century. As Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos noted a couple weeks ago on Meet The Press, “The reason Hillary Clinton isn???t necessarily well liked [as a candidate for president] is because she???s seen as part of the establishment, as part of the people that brought us the troubles that the Democratic Party is suffering today.”

Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman are not the future of the Democratic Party according to many Democrats, and not just because they support for the Iraq Occupation. They don’t represent the ingredients — the part of a solution to a strong, unified Democratic party that is capable of inspiring voters and winning elections. And as they say, if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. And if you think we’re all wrong, Mr. Lieberman, your energy will be much better spent trying to convince voters that you’re what they want in an elected leader rather than whining to anyone who will listen about the fact that you have a challenger and that Democrats aren’t rallying around your candidacy.

Hillary Booed For Stance On Iraq War

Anyone else think Senator Hillary Clinton is going to have to “flip-flop” on her support for the war in Iraq before the primaries arrive? Yesterday in Washington, she was booed at the “Take Back America” conference when she tried to explain her reasons for supporting the war. The quote that started the booing? “”I do not think it is a smart strategy, either, for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government, nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interests…”

I understand it’s a fine line she’s walking here. She doesn’t want to be viewed as weak on defense, so she’s saying she’s “for the war.” The trouble is, at this point if she decides to change her mind on this, she’ll be labelled the dreaded “flip-flopper.” That essentially means she’ll be “supporting the war” throughout her run for President. How can any Democrat, let alone any liberal, possibly vote for a candidate that supports this illegal, immoral war? A position of support for this war, based solely upon political manuvering, is not something Democrats should reward with their vote, no matter who the candidate. If the last several years have shown us anything, it’s that when Democrats stand up and pretend to be Republicans, they lose every time. When Democrats don’t speak what they feel, and try to manipulate their way to an election win, it doesn’t work. It’s the credibility gap.

I will continue to support Senator Clinton as my local Senator, but I will not be supporting her for a run to the Presidency, even if she does get past the primaries. After all the crap I gave some of my friends in 2000 for voting for Nader, I never though I’d say that, but I can never in good conscience support any candidate for the Presidency that for whatever reason cannot stand up and say that this war was the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place.

Still Think Bush “Won” the 2004 Election?

Want to know what the rest of the world is saying about our Banana Republic? Check out this article from New Zealand’s “Scoop” that raises some very interesting questions for anyone who believes that Bush’s supposed victory in 2004 was totally clear of any funny business. And while you’re perusing, if you have a tendency to stop reading in disgust when you don’t like what you read because you think someone’s being biased in their opinion, please just try to get to the bottom of the article to the footnotes section, which is longer than the actual article. This has to be the best documented argument that I’ve seen to date on all the 2004 election irregularities. We was robbed… Twice…

Hateful One Knocked out of #1 Spot

I think this must be the best piece of good news I’ve heard since Al-Zarqawi’s reign of terror was stopped last week.

Ann Coulter’s masterpiece of hateful rhetoric has now been knocked out of the #1 spot on Amazon.com, and it took FAR less time than I could’ve even imagined! And better yet, what replaced it? A book full of inspiring stories of personal successes — Succeed On Your Own Terms. I recommend you buy a copy just to keep Ann out of the #1 spot. Perhaps things are turning around in this world. I think people are finally seeing through Ann’s schtick. All the hate-filled neo-cons bought their copy of the book like good little soldiers, and now they’re all brain-fat and happy with a whole new round of untrue stories and anecdotes that they can try to foist upon unsuspecting family members at the next barbeque. Now that they’re all fed, there should be plenty of these books to go around. To keep Ann flush with cash, she’s going to have to rally the troops again and get some of them to buy fourth and fifth copies of the book to give to friends… Or put in closets, or burn, or whatever.

I leave you with a great blog entry that should put this whole Coulter thing to bed. It’s from Blogcritics.org, and the title is (some of you are gonna love this), “Why I Hate Ann Coulter and You Should Too.” It provides a great analysis of Coulter’s motivation behind criticizing the 9/11 widows. Two quotes from the article:

“It’s disgusting that Ann Coulter uses the misery of someone else to sell her vitriolic venom in book form. Her book continues to sell at a rapid pace, but at what cost? She reaps the benefits of the deaths of innocent men and women in 9/11 at the same time she tramples on the tears of their children and loved ones left behind.”

“It is apparent that Coulter is jealous of the attention that these 9/11 widows are receiving. (Several appeared on Larry King Live earlier this week.) While Coulter has to rely on sensationalism and insults to get press, these four widows have bravely chosen to use their personal losses in a public way, demanding answers about what happened to their loved ones in the World Trade Center disaster.”

The Trouble With Ann (Part II)

Ann Coulter on Larry KingI’ve written before about Ann Coulter. Why Is Ann So Skinny, and The Trouble With Ann attempted to make the point that she’ll say anything just to get attention. If ever I was proven right, it was this week, when she appeared on the Today show to hawk her new book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.”

So here she was, given a full eight or nine minutes one-on-one with Matt Lauer, to say whatever she wanted to say. According to Media Matters, this was apparently the third time in eight months that she has been on the show. So what did she say this time? I hesitate to give her words more distribution, but I’m also hoping that reasonable people who read this here blog and who previously thought that Coulter actually represented some kind of legitimate position on anything will see the error of their ways. Apparently, these are quotes from her book (which I have no intention of reading).

The first quote Matt asked her to justify was, “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths as much [as the widows of victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks].” The actual full quote is, “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.” Now, apart from being a totally reprehensible thing to say, it’s just not very, um, “godly,” is it? Is that something a Christian would say? If you don’t like the women making a political issue out of their grief, that’s one thing. But to use the word “enjoying,” is just plain hateful. HATEful.

I’ve talked about Ann’s hate before. She’s consumed with it. She hates and hates and hates, writes books about hating, then goes on television talking about how much she hates certain whole swaths of people — you know, THOSE people… Those… LIBERALS…

Then she pulls a classic neo-con move… Turning her position into that of the victim. She takes the stance that no one is allowing conservatives to simply respond to liberal positions. She tells Lauer, “They were using their grief in order to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding.” Lauer then mentions that no one was telling her she couldn’t respond. Then she says, “now you’re getting testy with me.” Ann, you have been given more airtime to put forth your hatred than any of these widows. How dare you play the victim.

So what did this group of widows do after they lost their husbands in the WTC terrorist attack? Damn them, they had the GALL to pressure those in charge to investigate whether or not anything could’ve been done to stop the attacks before they happened. Why did they do that? Gee, could it have anything to do with the fact that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney initially were against a full public investigation into what happened on September 11th? And even after they eventually were pressured into it, they dug in their heels and tried to impede the investigation in any way possible. These were women who lost their husbands due to major foul-ups in the government, and they just wanted answers.

We live in the NY Metro area. So does Ann Coulter (she has a multimillion dollar penthouse in Manhattan). She should know that a Zogby poll after the attack noted that half of NYC residents and 40% of NY State residents believed that the government knew about the attacks before they happened but did nothing to stop them. With that many people in the area where the attacks occurred thinking that the government messed up here, would it not make sense that those who were most affected would make their voices heard when the government was refusing to take responsibility? For this, they are told they’re “enjoying” their husbands’ deaths?

I think perhaps before Ann got license to write a book about ‘Godlessness,” she should have first admitted that she is no Christian.

It’s kind of funny, because she actually lies about her Christianity as well. Check out this piece at Raw Story. Apparently, Ann was featured in an article in Time magazine, which talked a lot about her supposed “church” and how she always brought people there. Turns out Redeemer Presbyterian’s Communications and Media Director Cregan Cooke couldn’t confirm if Coulter had ever been there. Of course, that doesn’t mean she never has, but given how enlightened Coulter believes herself to be, one would think she’d be right up there in the front row singing Godly songs at the top of her lungs. Guess not.

The UK-based Guardian has one spot where you can see the most un-Christian of Coulter’s drivel. There, you’ll find such Coulter gems as “you’re no longer a grieving mom; you’re a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show” (talking about Cindy Sheehan), “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building,” and my favorite, “Frankly, I’m not a big fan of the First Amendment.” This, despite the fact that she believes that people are always trying to keep her from “responding.”

Well Ann, you’ve done it again. You’ve whored yourself out to sell more books. You’re #1 at Amazon.com, and for all I know you’ll be #1 on the NY Times list. All publicity is good publicity, right? Everyone’s talking about you. The problem is now, with all your insane quotes so well documented in the blogosphere and elsewhere, there is now a legitimate and lengthy record of the difference between who you claim to be, and who your words say you are.

I really and truly hope there is a god. And I’d really really love to be there when Coulter attempts to “respond” to him (or her) when taken to task on the hatred she spread while she was here, all under cover of being “godly.” And how funny, and how ironic it would be, if god interrupts her and says, just before closing the Gates in front of her, “you know, I’m not really a fan of the First Amendment either…”

More Tax Cuts for the Wealthy

I had to laugh recently when I heard a campaign commercial for a New Jersey conservative politician. I don’t know what he was running for, but I heard the phrase “big-spending liberal” at least twice in the ad. I think the GOP has completely lost the right to call liberals “big spenders,” particularly when all three branches of government have been under its rule for some time now and the government just keeps getting bigger and keeps falling deeper and deeper into debt that threatens everything from our citizens’ health to our national security. How dare they call liberals “big spenders,” when our last turn at the wheel led to a decade of unprecedented peace and prosperity and budget surpluses?

This administration isn’t taxing and spending to death, it’s just spending to death. Recently, the House and Senate passed a bill that will borrow $70 billion to extend tax cuts on investment income and dividends. This, at a time when we’re running record deficits as a country and just last March, Congress had to set a new debt ceiling — for the fourth time in five years — at 9 TRILLION DOLLARS. Of course, the president [sic] signed the bill.

Isn’t it unpatriotic to be signing more tax cuts into law when we’re at war? Especially when it looks very much like this war of election could end up costing us a full $2 trillion. I think had the promise of Iraq reconstruction “paying for itself” come true, that would be one thing. But now it’s just irresponsible. The debt ceiling is bound to go higher, and even Senate Budget Committee Chairman and otherwise Ultra-Conservative Judd Gregg of NH noted, “You cannot grow your way out of these deficits.”

But perhaps those who voted for Bush this last time around should be most concerned that their votes have resulted in the United States of America no longer having the cash reserves to pay for adequate national security. One of the angriest e-mails I have received from this site was before the 2004 election when someone from Long Island wrote to me telling me how scared she was of another attack and that she trusted no one but George Bush to take care of us and protect us against terrorists, and that John Kerry was a spinless wimp who wouldn’t protect us at all.

I would invite that woman (if she still reads this blog) to check out this article from Newsday. It basically says that national budget cuts are a serious threat to NYC’s security. The amount of money that New York City will be alotted from the Department of Homeland Security is set to decrease from the $207.5 million it received for fiscal 2005 to almost half that this coming year. Nassau and Suffolk counties will also be affected by these budget cuts.

So who will have to step in and make up the shortfall if we want to continue to be protected and to improve our emergency infrastructure? New York State. And how much did most of us get in tax cuts? A couple hundred bucks? Looks like the state will soon have to be asking us for more money.

Now let me try to remember… Why did Bush pass those tax cuts? Putting more money in our pockets?

We know who got the majority of the tax cuts. It’s well documented, and it continues to be with each round of new tax cuts. Bush and his cronies are raiding the treasury and handing the money over to campaign contributors and fat cats. For the rest of us, every time we hear the word “tax cuts” we should be hearing in our own head, “shell game.”

Next up for Bush and friends? The so-called death tax. Don’t fall for it, folks… How about we get rid of the Bush-induced $28000 “birth tax” put upon each child brought into the world first?