Terror Alert!!!

RED ALERT...RED ALERT: Romney, out? Pawlenty, out? Palin, out?

Could the last man standing for GOP VP be Bush's former terror stooge, baby-killer Tom Ridge? Or Bush's current terror stooge, baby-killer Joe Lieberman?

Heaven forfend! Stay tuned right here for more.

Update: It's Palin. Which will seriously ratchet down the wingnut terror level -- she's not just pro-life but a 44 year-old mother of five, including a four month-old child with Downs Syndrome. It's become apparent to me from my regular readings at The Corner, where they've taken lately to accusing Obama of INFANTICIDE in all caps, that abortion is pretty much all they've got.

Abortion is it for conservatives, that is, except for the "experience" issue. With which it turns out conservatives have actually always been at war.

Whose Country?

Joe Lieberman:

In my opinion, the choice could not be more clear:....Between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first...and one candidate who has not.

John McCain:

Today, we are all Georgians.

The Washington Post:

Sen. John McCain's top foreign policy adviser prepped his boss for an April 17 phone call with the president of Georgia and then helped the presumptive Republican presidential nominee prepare a strong statement of support for the fledgling republic.

The day of the call, a lobbying firm partly owned by the adviser, Randy Scheunemann, signed a $200,000 contract to continue providing strategic advice to the Georgian government in Washington.

And finally, a nice bit of understatement from Matt Yglesias:

If it were actually the case that we are all Georgians this would obviously be no big deal, but in the real world it’s a bit of an issue when an influential member of a major presidential campaign is an agent of a foreign government.

...Then Comes Lieberman with a Baby Carriage

I found this elevated analysis of the recent Obama-Lieberman dust-up over at -- where else?-- The Corner:

Re: Anatomy of an Obama Hit Job [Andy McCarthy]

Remarkable, isn't it, that someone so concerned about our image in the "international community," so offended by Bush's purported cowboy insensitivity, can get so spun up over "false rumors that [he] is a Muslim." Even if his accusations against Sen. Lieberman had any merit, why does Sen. Obama — who used to say that his middle name, Hussein, would be a real asset in the signals it would send to the world — now think it's defamatory to be taken for a Muslim?

06/10 12:04 PM

Yeah, Obamama's boy; if you love the world so much, why don't you just marry it already?

Update: This update over at The Corner is nipping close at parody's heels.

Iraq: Opinions Differ

One man's opinion:

Gen. Petraeus and other U.S. officials in Iraq emphasize that it is still too soon to draw hard judgments about the success of our new security strategy--but during my visit I saw hopeful signs of progress. Consider Anbar province, Iraq's heart of darkness for most of the past four years....When I returned to Anbar on this trip, however, the security environment had undergone a dramatic reversal.

In Baghdad, U.S. forces have cut in half the number of Iraqi deaths from sectarian violence since the surge began in February....

Some argue that the new strategy is failing because, despite gains in Baghdad and Anbar, violence has increased elsewhere in the country, such as Diyala province. This gets things backwards: Our troops have succeeded in improving security conditions in precisely those parts of Iraq where the "surge" has focused....

To be sure, there are still daunting challenges ahead. Iraqi political leaders, in particular, need to step forward and urgently work through difficult political questions....

I returned from Iraq grateful for the progress I saw....And I conclude from my visit that victory is still possible in Iraq--thanks to the Iraqi majority that desperately wants a better life, and because of the courage, compassion and competence of the extraordinary soldiers and statesmen who are carrying the fight there....

And the opinions of some other men:

"We're not making any progress," Hedin said, as he recalled a comrade who was shot by a sniper last week. "It just seems like we drive around and wait to get shot at."

But as he waited two chairs down from where Lieberman would sit, Hedin said he'd never voice his true feelings to the senator.

"I think I'd be a private if I did," he joked. "It's just more troops, more targets."

In the past two months, the unit has lost two men. In May alone, at least 120 U.S. troops died in Iraq, the bloodiest month in 2007 and the highest number since the battles of Fallujah in 2004.

Spc. Kevin Krasco, 20, of Medford, Mass., and Spc. Kevin Adams, 20, of Moosup, Conn., chimed in with their dismay before turning the conversation to baseball.

"It's like everything else in this war," Adams said, referring to Baghdad. "It hasn't changed."

Who you gonna believe: a bunch of nobodies, or a United States Senator?

Longer Joe Lieberman

"There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to [actions taken by our own government, which in theory are subject to our approval, and for which we are ultimately responsible,¹] seems to inspire greater passion than opposition to [actions by people who bear no relation to us, for which we have no responsibility, over which we have no control²]."

¹"the war in Iraq"
²"Islamist extremism"

Clueless Joe

The New Yorker has a horrifying Jeffrey Goldberg profile on Joe Lieberman that could be summed up as follows: it's worse than you think. (Yes, I know; it usually is.) And when I say worse, I mean Joe Lieberman is completely batshit crazy. If you don't believe me, go read Digby's excellent post about the article, and about Lieberman's pathological worldview.

One bit struck me that Digby didn't highlight. Goldberg describes the Petraeus hearing, where Lieberman said an anti-surge resolution would encourage our enemies...and Senator Clinton responded with a certain amount of (perfectly understandable) anger. Goldberg says that later, when he

asked him if he understood why Hillary Clinton might have reacted the way she did, he said, “I can’t explain why she did that.” Then he shook his head, apparently in sorrow.

Not a fucking clue.

Of course, the irony of Lieberman's accusation is that this is exactly what he's been doing all along with his incessant digs at Democrats and praise of Bush: encouraging the enemy.

The difference is that one situation is a war, and the other is politics. Wars are won or lost based on things like weaponry, troop levels and training, logistical support, strategic and tactical planning, and so on. Political battles are won or lost based on public opinion. None of our criticism of the Iraq war makes even the tiniest bit of practical difference to what happens on the ground; Lieberman's attacks on what is ostensibly his own party have time and again caused real and practical damage.

[That's all, folks]

'Bipartisanship' and Accountability

Regular commenter Ahab, in an e-mail, says:

Lieberman deciding not to investigate the Bush administration on Katrina...shows the flaw in the pining for "bipartisanship" by the David Broders of the world. Only in a system with antagonistic elements can we hope to check corruption and incompetence. Whether there was a quid pro quo between Bush and Lieberman on this matter or whether Lieberman is manifesting his own confused notions here about what's best for the country, the truth will not see the light of day under this sort of "bipartisan" decision. Hence no lessons will be drawn from the massive Bush administration failures on Katrina.

I think this is right. Lieberman's brand of 'bipartisanship' is a corrupt, self-serving you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours kind of arrangement with the effect (and possibly design) of ensuring that the current power structure goes unchallenged. An antagonistic opposition party is essential if we're to hold anyone accountable.

Happily, with the regrettable exception of Lieberman (CfL-CT), I think we have exactly that.

That said, the value of investigations and hearings and such is limited unless there is at least a modicum of genuine bipartisanship--'genuine bipartisanship' being defined here as people crossing party lines not to suck up to power but to do the right thing. Nixon was forced to resign because enough Republicans participated in good faith to make it clear to everyone that it wasn't just a partisan attack. The Clinton impeachment failed because it was partisan warfare from beginning to end, and everyone who wasn't in the Washington press corps understood that. Antagonistic Democrats in Congress will be able to bring a lot of things to light, but the ultimate accountability moment will never happen without the participation of some principled (or scared--that works too) Republicans.

So I think there's bad bipartisanship and good bipartisanship. An example of the latter is the Senate vote on earmarks. A handful of Democrats (including Lieberman) joined Republicans to pass a much tougher version of earmark reform than the Democratic leadership had embraced. I generally respect Harry Reid, and I'm an advocate of party discipline, but in this particular case it's a good thing that both failed; I'm skeptical of bipartisanship, or things called 'bipartisanship', but in this case it happened to be a positive thing.

That certainly doesn't vindicate the Broderites, whose insipid notion of 'bipartisanship' has no correlation to anything in the real world. It does suggest that even when we are the majority party, there are limits to the value of partisanship.

[That's all, folks]

The Ugliest Kind of Anger...

...is anger born of entitlement.

(Hat tip: Lindsay Beyerstein.)

[That's all, folks]

Quote of the Day

Charles Pierce, on Lieberman sucking up to hatemonger Glenn Beck:

Principles, my aunt Kate. He'd kick a crutch out from under a cripple if it meant 15 votes in Waterbury.

[That's all, folks]

Team Connecticut

Joe Lieberman lost, lost, lost the Connecticut Democratic primary. In his non-concession speech, he said:

Now let me tell you how I see where we are now,” the senator continued, in a speech that was less of a concession than a confirmation that he would not back down. “I’m a sports fan, so I’m going to use a sports comparison, and as I see it in this campaign, we’ve just finished the first half and the Lamont team is ahead. But in the second half, our team — Team Connecticut — is going to surge forward to victory in November.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Team Connecticut just, uhhh, vote? And not for Lieberman? Just asking.

(I love the smell of cross-post in the morning.)

[That's all, folks]

Pombo's Solution to the Lieberman Problem

Well...actually a Pombo advisor:

“Connecticut should have its statehood taken away from it. The foolishness of its pampered residents should be demonstrated to others by a government program to bulldoze the entire state, salt the land and construct a windfarm to supply NYC with electricity. And its residents should be relocated to Guantanamo Bay where they can take a number behind the 3 who hung themselves this weekend, since they seem so intent on suicide.”
-- Daniel Kish, a senior adviser to Pombo, in an email

And what did Connecticut do to deserve this fate? A Connecticut newspaper ran an editorial opposed to drilling in ANWR.

This would be much more trivial if it didn't sound so much like Pombo himself. Pombo isn't just an anti-environmentalist. He isn't just an extreme anti-environmentalist. He's a dangerously fanatical anti-environmentalist, full of rage and hatred toward every aspect of environmental protection. Which is why, come the election, a lot of us are hoping desperately that his constituents Say No to Pombo.

[That's all, folks]

Mavericks and Opportunists

Debra Saunders is the latest to recycle the stupid and ridiculous Democrats-are-hypocrites-because-they-hate-Lieberman-but-love-McCain line:

MONTHS AGO, I was lunching with some savvy Democrats, when one of them asked me: What is the problem with all those Republicans who can't stand maverick GOP Sen. John McCain?

....Then again, I added, Democrats have their own maverick -- Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman....That's when the table got quiet. It is one thing for Democrats to feel superior to rube Republicans who don't like McCain because he is not sufficiently doctrinaire. When, however, a Democrat gets along with Republicans and espouses moderate positions, well then, he is a turncoat, plain and simple. The episode demonstrated how voters value bipartisanship -- from the other side, only.

Thing One: I've known some Democrats who have, in the past, expressed respect for McCain...but at this point I don't know any Democrats who have anything but contempt for him.

Thing two: most Democrats have an entirely consistent position on Lieberman and McCain. We can't stand Lieberman because he kisses Bush's ass, and we can't stand McCain because he kisses Bush's ass. No inconsistency at all.

Thing three: the 'maverick' standard is completely inane in the first place, an insipid elevation of personality over substance that pretends to the status of savvy commentary.

Thing Four: there are mavericks and there are opportunists, and it doesn't pay to confuse the two.

Russ Feingold is a maverick--that is, he parts ways with the party on genuine matters of principle. I don't like some of his votes, and I don't always like the way he does things (I think he completely and unforgiveably bungled the censure resolution), but I respect his motivation.

Chuck Hagel is a maverick. Hagel has been one of the most vocal critics of Bush on the Republican side, not just on Iraq but on other issues as well, and he's been marginalized within the party as a result. I don't think I'd ever vote for Hagel, but I respect his willingness to deal with the real world instead of party-line ideology.

Lieberman and McCain are opportunists. They're 'mavericks' only in the narrow sense that they differ with their respective parties on some issues. When it really matters, what they do is gravitate toward power and popularity. In Lieberman's case, that means crossing the aisle because that's where the power is. The very things people like Saunders see as Lieberman's 'maverickness' (Iraq, attacking his fellow Democrats) are in fact evidence of his slavishness, of his instinct for kissing up to those in power.

McCain's opportunism is a little different because he's on the stronger side. He differs with his party on the little things because it plays well with the people he'll need to win the presidency; on the big things (e.g., Iraq) he goes along with the administration. So he sponsors a toothless bill that says torture is sub-optimal, knowing full well that as long as this administration is in power it'll never have any practical impact; he gets some cred with the people who are uncomfortable with torture (also known as 'sane people'), but he doesn't pose any serious challenge to the people whom he'll need to get him through the primaries.

So, yeah, show me a real maverick and I'll at least grant him or her a little respect. Lieberman and McCain aren't it.

[That's all, folks]

Lieberman Gathers Signatures

Scene in front of the Ferry Building:

SIGNATURE GATHERER: Excuse me, would you like to sign a petition to help get our party on the ballot?
POTENTIAL VOTER: Well, maybe. What party is it?
SG: It's the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.
PV: Um...but this is California.
SG: Yes, but we think our platform is one that deserves a hearing in all 50 states.
PV: Uh-huh.
SG: We're really excited about this. We feel that the Connecticut for Lieberman Party offers a genuine, sensible alternative to the occasionally misguided policies of the Republicans and the psychotic left-wing extremism of the Democrats.
PV: Okay...so what is the platform of the, uh, Connecticut for Lieberman Party?
SG: Lieberman.
PV: ...?
SG: Well, more specifically, Joe Lieberman.
PV: Um...right. And you're also for, let me guess, Connecticut?
SG: Well, actually Joe Lieberman is for just about all the states. He hasn't taken a stand on Alabama yet, he's still looking into it, but basically he's in favor of all of them.
PV: Glad to hear it.
SG: So the 'Connecticut' thing is kind of poetic license.
PV: So this is just all about Joe Lieberman, then? There isn't anything more to it?
SG: I'm not getting your point.
PV: Well, I mean, it's a political party, right? You must have stands on all the important issues.
SG: Oh, yes, we do.
PV: Okay.
SG: We're completely opposed to primary challengers.
PV: Primary challengers...for Joe.
SG: That's right. It may not be a popular stand, but it's a principled stand. Principled--just like Joe.
PV: But what about other issues like...oh, I don't know...just to pick one out of the air...Iraq?
SG: I'm glad you brought that up. As a matter of principle, we are firmly and unequivocally in favor of Joe Lieberman's conscience.
PV: Okay. And other people's consciences?
SG: We don't really take a stand on those.
PV: I see.
SG: Except, you know, if they agree with Joe's. Then we're in favor.
PV: And if they disagree...
SG: ...then they're left-wing extremists.
PV: I see.
SG: Any other issues you'd like to know about? Like our stand on not really being kissed by Bush, or on being mean to the President?
PV: No, thanks.
SG: Because we're against that last one.
PV: Really, I think I've heard enough.
SG: So, you'll be signing?
PV: Gee, I don't think so. But best of luck.
SG: Did I mention the New Republic endorsement?....Okay, well, goodbye I guess.

[That's all, folks]

Conscience

Shakespeare's Sister links to a great column (by Colin McEnroe) on Lieberman's follies. Included in the litany is Lieberman's solicitude for the tender consciences of hospital administrators:

Lieberman said the Catholic hospitals shouldn't have to hand out the pills and that transportation should instead be provided, for the rape victim, to some other hospital. He said, "In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital."

....

That's taking better care of the administrator than of the rape victim. And the former is generally having a better day than the latter.

Shakes' response is excellent:

Lieberman’s reducing the trauma of being redirected to a hospital which is willing to provide you the care you need after being raped to “a short ride” is not amusing. He’s yada-yadaing all the things upon which McEnroe deliberately elucidates—the emotional devastation, the fear, the humiliation, the invasiveness, all of which are exacerbated by the implied shamefulness of wanting to prevent a possible pregnancy caused by a sexual assault.

Besides the callousness of the stance, though, the thing that gets to me is the way they use the word 'conscience'....

To me, conscience is an individual thing. Conscience applies to my own actions, not to somebody else's. Nobody can regulate my conscience, and I can't regulate anybody else's.

That doesn't seem to be a universal definition. For Catholic hospitals (and people like Lieberman who support them), for the 'conscience clause' backers, for those who oppose adoption by gay parents, 'conscience' is something you can apply to other people. For all of them, it isn't about whether or not they sin; it's about preventing somebody else from sinning.

So sorry, but my conscience won't let you take Plan B. My conscience won't let you marry the man or woman you love. My conscience won't let you give a needy child a loving home.

If there's one thing I hate more than bigotry, it's abuse of the language. Applying the word 'conscience' to the desire to regulate the behavior of others is a first-degree crime against English. Conscience is too important a word to abandon to the barbarians; we need, above all, to restore it to its true meaning.

We do, in fact, need to protect the right of conscience. We need to protect the rape victim's right to exercise her conscience, to do what she believes is right. We need to protect the right of every individual to exercise his or her conscience in matters of sex and reproduction. We need to protect the right of couples to exercise their consciences, to marry if they believe it is the right thing for them, to raise children if they believe it is right. We need to take back the word 'conscience' and start really protecting it.

And when that happens, then I'll be able to hear the word 'conscience' without gagging.

[That's all, folks]

Credit Where Credit Is Due

Before everyone forgets about our victory on ANWR, I just wanted to point out that one of the heroes of the story was good old Holy Joe Lieberman. Lieberman has consistently been on the right side on ANWR, and on environmental issues in general.

None of this excuses any of the really appalling things he has done: excusing torture, attacking his fellow Democrats on national security issues, getting chummy with Bush, and so on. Lieberman is in many ways the very definition of a 'self-hating Democrat', and over the years he has caused enormous harm to the party (and, more to the point, to the causes the party is supposed to represent).

But if I'm going to excoriate Lieberman for the bad he does, then honesty compels me to give him credit when he takes a stand on the right side. (And I think his history of support for environmental causes gives ample evidence that this is a heartfelt stand, and not just trying to curry favor with the Democratic base.) I still think on balance he's probably done more harm than good, and I would still like to see someone better in his seat. None of that has changed.

But for now, on this issue, on this vote: good for him.

[That's all, folks]

Quote of the Day

Harry Reid, via Atrios:

I’ve spoken to Joe Lieberman and he knows he’s out there alone. I mean, literally alone. Joe is a fine man, he has strong feelings, but he’s just alone. Even Republicans don’t agree with Joe.

One more reason why Harry Reid is my hero.