Saweet! Lamont wins the Connecticut Primary, defeating Lieberman

What a glorious night this is! I'm not going to say I didn't think much of Joe from the moment he was named as Gore's running mate. And I'm not going to say that Lieberman was a chump for accepting Bush's bush shit when it came time to vote on the use of force bill. Most in the Congress were bitten by the lies and deception. It was afterward, as Joe began to cozy up to the Preznit, and finally declared that if you didn't support POTUS, you were against your country. What an uppercase L loser! I know in my heart that Lieberman will never, ever, understand what just happened. You and I do, and we're going to have to carry the word to the rest of the world. We must find a way to get to the people who don't get it. Ideas?

Posted at NoQuarter 7/27/06

What a tangled web. I can easily believe every word of it. Why would corrupt politicians care from what source their money comes? What care Republicans if they're contributing to the drug problems in this country--after all, the pusher isn't the problem, it's the amoral addict (snark). Indeed, it would suit the REPOs to have the problem increase, so they could trumpet their repressive tactics on certain, well delineated, segments of the population (if you know what I mean, and I think you do). These guys deserve no better than a watery grave. Come November, let's sink the lot of 'em!

Posted at NoQuarter 6/20/06

Hi, Larry. Stay feisty! I, on the other hand, am about out of juice. Consider this: POTUS says we're in a War on Terror. Yet he trots around, posturing, fund-raising for his buddies. I am beyond despair, approaching apathy. I can hear the drumbeat of the 'net roots', and I can be thankful that there are thoughtful people like yourself taking the 'point' in this advance. But I feel powerless, and worse. I feel as if, knowing what I know, I am being the world's biggest coward by not grabbing my torch and pitchfork and walking across the country to confront the fascists that run the country. But here I am, afraid that the NSA is gonna 'find' something in my communications that will let them put me away, just for feeling desperate! I don't even rate Cowardly Lion status. At least you stand up to them. Those people the other day who harrangued you for the comment on Rove. . . even they have more guts than me. You don't see me wandering over to the right side and blasting the bastards for their lies. You don't hear me calling up Limbaugh to excoriate him for his lies. Why? Because I don't have a 'voice'. You, Larry, have a voice. People will listen to you--even people who don't want to! So, like it or not, Larry, you and Christy and Jane and John and Kos and Murray and emptywheel and the rest, YOU are going to have to carry the torches and lead the rest of us across the barricades. We are all in a perilous position in this moment. Bush has already suspended Habeas Corpus for whomever he wishes to call a 'terrorist' (just like Hitler), and declared all communications--electronic, paper, or otherwise--fair game (just like Hitler), has said that he doesn't need to listen to what the legislative branch has to say (and his 'signing statements' are tantamount to laws, in and of themselves), which is only a thread's width from saying he can make the laws without the legislative branch (just like Hitler), he's planned concentration camps and already let the (of course) no-bid contract to Haliburton, 'should the need arise' to incarcerate large numbers of illegal aliens and terrorists (just like Hitler), and changed the armed services manual to accommodate instructions as to how to build, maintain, and operate such large incarceration facilties (on, by the way, military bases). We are so close to a fascist dictatorship that I am constantly fearful. We all should be. Like Hitler, Bush has a YES congress. Like Hitler, he has a popular message--kill non-Christians, scapegoat liberals and intellectuals, and homosexuals, and keep women pregnant and quiet (where is Laura, these days? anyone know?). But I dribble on. You and your readers have encouraged me to be engaged, only to be discouraged by the enormity of the situation we face. Where to?

and then this, later that day.

Dear Liberals are oh so very deep!,
Your blindly ethnocentric assertion that assertiveness is "the human ideal" truly underlines the fundamental difference between righties and lefties. Righties don't really give a shit about anybody but themselves and their intellectual peers, while lefties advance the notion of plurality and inclusiveness. I have only one response to your diatribe: Let whomever is without sin cast the first stone, else that person be branded a hypocrite.

Which brought this in response from Liberals are oh so very deep!

"blindly ethnocentric assertion"? lol

Please don't mistake yourself for an insightful intellectual, unless you wish to continue to be an unwitting clown. Which is fine with me, if you so wish btw.

If being assertive isn't the human ideal, what is, agressiveness? To you and your laughably clueless liberal comrades, Iunderstand that it is! :)

Posted at Thinkprogess 5/5/06

But, but, what’s this got to do with Jack Abramoff? Just kidding. Forni-gate trumps DeLay’s Abramoff ‘problems’, Mehlman’s phone-jamming problems, Frist’s ‘blind-trust’ problems, Ney’s ‘Cunningham’ problems, Cheney’s ‘face-peppering’ problem, Gannon’s problems, Colbert’s ‘chilly-climate’ problems, and my personality disorder all put together!

and this also

In fact (and sorry for this addendum) I think RICO statutes should be invoked at this point, and then the entire federal government can get in on the act! Stiffer penalties for conspiracy, for transporting women for the purposes of prostitution, you name it. Everyone who attended those parties will now be at pains to show cause why they should not be included in a conspiracy indictment.

Posted at TheWashingtonNote 4/26/06

In other news, the Pentagon is also hoping that, very soon, their new stealth pigs will fly...

Posted at NoQuarter 5/29/06

I'm afraid you won't like me saying this, Larry. But I must. We are living in a fascist democracy. I know that doesn't sound possible--we usually think of fascism as a totalitarian system. But it needn't be, and in fact it wasn't in 1930s and 1940s Germany or Italy. The Bush administration is right down the line a fascist one, if you logically accept the account of fascism described at http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm. When looked at according to this kind of analysis of political systems, there is no way to avoid it. Bush and Co are fascists. We need to treat them as such.

This comment brought this response by Thinker:

Yes, Canuck Stuck in Muck, I see the inside job, 911 an identical pretext to the burning of the Reichstag. In both cases terrorists (or anarchist - defacto terrorists) were blamed, openning the door to extra-ordinary security measures. The aftermath has seen the removal of human rights (as a legal standard) with campaigns against the Jew and Arab respectively. Perhaps it will bring them closer together, now?

Posted at NoQuarter 7/19/06

I recently found this short essay in a collection of early modern English prose. I think it must be about King George, the mad King, against whom America revolted in the 1770s. I think it resonates in the present day, in America, and it is still capable of inspiring hope that a truly pluralistic, tolerant, fair society can flourish on these shores.


On the King

The King’s public comportment grows more unseemly by the day※His confused oratories do much to obfuscate, and little to illuminate※His demeanor is often churlish; his sincerity lacking entirely※His smirk is ever present※He dissembles without compunction※He lies with impunity※Little care has he for the commoner※His only real care is the fortunate class, the monied class, his barons and his courtiers※He and his barons dispense political favors in return for riches, a use of power which corrupts absolutely※No use has he for parliament, nor for the judges※He has trampled upon Runnymeade’s triumph, and he dares the learned to unseat him, with their words their only weapons※But words, alas, cannot his power usurp※Too well the scholar knows this※Revolt cannot take hold while the King and his court hold sway over the press, the army, and the sheriffs※Reason, often branded treason in this upside-down world, cannot, it seems, triumph over venal emotions and grasping greed※And yet, the only weapon worth wielding is Truth※Truth cannot be detained indefinitely, unless the truth-teller be swept away along with the words, never to be heard from or seen again※Truth holds promise※Truth, alone, can positively affect the course of history※The great Crusaders knew this, and so they locked the Truth away in church liturgy, and clerical rhetoric※The Lord Jesus Christ knew the Truth※Yet this King, this tyrant, knows not the true Jesus Christ—only a vain shadow of His wisdom guides this ruler※Indeed, this King will use the word of God to cow his opponents, and to turn one set of believers against another, and all believers in Christ against those who do not laud Him—the Muslim, the Jew, the Daoist, the Hindu, the Sikh, the Atheist※But such intolerance will not endure, as long as there are those who will speak Truth to Power, as long as there are those with minds open to the Truth, as long as there are Truths that must be told—about this King, about his wars, about his corruption, about his duplicity, about his dissembling※

This elicited the following response from Chris Vosburg

Canuck Amuck, the "On the King" essay sounds a bit like some of our own Thomas Paine's commentary on the King in his more spirited moments.

In fact, one of Tom's observations in Common Sense on hereditary monarchies (like ours, hee hee) has been ringing in my head since the obnoxious fratboy first campaigned for the Presidency in the 90s.

Tom wrote:

"One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings is that nature disapproves it; otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion."

Posted at NoQuarter 8/1/06

Hi, Susan. I gotta admit that I am VERY afraid. This country's on a tightrope in a strong wind wearing flip-flops. More troops to Baghdad the other day. Reckless talk of a 'wider war' involving Syria and Iran. A feeble-minded president on our side, and psychopaths on the other side. The choices we're being offered for our delectation are a) Jihad for the glory of Allah, or b) Armageddon and the end of days, chased with the Rapture, brought to you by Liberty University and the Americans for Tax Reform. Our Secretary of State offers explicit support of the Israeli war crimes in Lebanon by explaining the Israel must "de-fang Hizbollah." De-fang? Even if the Israeli's could (which seems increasingly unlikely) extract every rocket and gun--effectively removing their teeth--Hizbollah would still have two good hands, access to the best brains in the Arab world, and a very understandable thirst for revenge. And what's George gonna do when the wheels start coming off the troop transports and humvees? March to Syria? Wade into Iran? I'm bewildered and afraid. And I have to think that there are so many torture-loving, Arab-hating, CIA rendition backing, Christian Supremacists in this country that there is likely no such thing as a good outcome to this catastrophic so-called GWOT. I'm more afraid now of George effing Bush than I ever was of Al Qaeda and OBL!

Posted at NoQuarter 6/26/06

Larry,
I'm appalled, as I'm sure are all of your readers. And, I'm sorry, but I return to my repetitive refrain: what's it going to take for us, all of us, to take to the streets with torches and pitchforks. The bastards have lied, and lied, and lied again. The evidence is everywhere. I have said, repeatedly, that I'm not paranoid. But I have to say, the Democrats in Congress are way too quiet about all this. There should not be a day wherein one iota of legislation is passed until the Congress acts on the 'intelligence' we have to hand about the administration's prevarications. Not another bill, not another amendment, until the issues are dealt with. I'm sorry. I think the Democrats are complicit, or completely immoral, to allow the day-to-day legislative business to proceed while our brothers and sisters are dying in Iraq and the warlords are consolidating power in Somalia, and the previously powerful drug lords in Afghanistan become more powerful.
Whom do we appeal to?

Posted at NoQuarter 7/13/06

Hey, Larry.
Spot on, as usual. I don't want to change the subject, only to shade it somewhat, with an insight that I had listening to John Dean discussing his new book with Olbermann. Several times I've asked, sometimes in a whiney voice, why people aren't taking to the streets with torches and pitchforks. John Dean's discovery (rather like tripping over an elephant) that there is a voluminous literature on authoritarian personalities and those who follow them, and that almost exclusively authoritarian personalities, and those who follow them, are conservative, in the American sense of the word. Ahah! I said. I knew it! And I did, 'cause I'm an anthropologist, and anthropologists know these things, as do the sociologists who study the phenomenon. However, I hadn't before yesterday made two connections. First, liberals are not susceptible to authoritarianism. Why? Because they question authority. They confront it. They analyze it.They believe in a pluralistic society. They believe in tolerance. All of these characteristics militate against being susceptible to the likes of Hitler, Mussolini and Cheny (Bush is just an accolyte, one of the followers--a mouthpiece, a Charlie McCarthy). And that led me to remember that here, in America (and Canada, and a few other democracies) you don't take to the streets with torches and pitchforks, because it isn't necessary. Just vote the bastards out! Once every four years, the people have that opportunity. Of course, there are apathetic souls who don't exercise their franchise. Dean further revealed that about 23% of the population is either authoritarian, or a follower of the authoritarian personality. That explains why Bush's numbers won't go below 30%. The 'base' is unmovable, intractable, and fervent. They are brutal, and strident, vehement, and vocal followers. They have a common set of enemies (abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research), and they villify and demonize anyone who gets in their way. They brook no dissent. They would rather die than let their leader come to harm, or be taken to task for mistaken and misguided policies, and they do so without question. That's the fundamental difference between Bush's base and the liberal base. Unfortunately (and here's the other insight--make of it what you will), that is precisely the reason that liberals seem (not are--seem) unruly, unfocussed, disorganized, a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off. It's because they don't follow blindly. They don't subscribe to a particular worldview. The Democratic tent is vast, and accepting of dissent. Not so the Republicans, and especially the far-right, Christian Supremacists. So, you, and I and anyone else with a megaphone has to keep up the drumbeat, to (pardon the overworked expression) energize the liberal base. We need them to feel as if their vote counts (notwithstanding vote tampering, which is a whole 'nother issue). And it will count, as long as the truth remains in the national conversation. So, to Hell with Fox, and Rupert, and the NYT and the Mooney press. Keep the truth in view. Speak it loud, and speak it often. It's the only chance we've got.

I've gone on far too long. Thanks for your forbearance.

And, keep fighting the good fight.

Posted at NoQuarter 6/10/06

I'm very afraid. Not just because the senior Senator from Pennsylvania is a toady in sheep's clothing. First our telephones, then our internet searches, and now, our discussions on myspace or livejournal or you name it are going to be fair game. Call me naive, but until yesterday (metaphorically speaking) I assumed it would be impossible for the all-seeing eye to pick my conversation out of the squillions going on at any one moment. We now know that's not true (well, some of us are slow learners). And it's always been the case that a warrant was needed (at least if the eye wanted to stay on the up and up--unlike Nixon and Hoover). But with Spector and others paving the way for the spying to be done without judicial oversight, the gate's wide open, and any agent with a grudge, or for that matter a Vice-President with a grudge, or anyone in between, has limitless access to our thoughts, our relationships, and our lives. I'm very afraid. And I wonder how the founders managed to convince their compatriots that the need for security doesn't trump the right to privacy. I'm not, nor never have been, a radical. And I don't suggest armed revolt or anything like that. But what are we to do? How do we wake the sleeping giant? We're going to have to be very clever, starting now, to energize people of good will everywhere to put a lasso on the Eye, or we'll soon all be in chains.

Posted at Thinkprogess 7/16/06

Ms. Kay is at least trying to steer the conversation away from fellating the POTUS. Matthews is a bigger sycophant than Joe Lieberman (and that’s going somewhere). That 43’s grandpappy was a fascist doesn’t surprise me–his son and his grandson are died-in-the-wool fascists, too. When is this country gonna wake up to the reality that we’re living in a fascist state? Too late, I think, is the definitive answer. Google Bush fascism 14 points and see if you don’t agree.

Posted at Thinkprogess 7/11/06

I’ll admit it. I’m an errant pedant. And I daily lament the passing of the hyphen, not because it’s useless, but I guess it’s because it’s too hard to write prose that can’t be misunderstood. Without the needed hyphen, your headline can equally well be interpreted as follows: The Four Most Overpaid White (i.e. race) House (i.e. Congress) Staffers. I’m afraid that even a term as well know [sic] as the White House needs to be hyphenated when it’s used as a modifier.

Posted at Leftcoaster 6/21/06

I'm sensing a pattern here. I'm connecting dots, adding 2 plus 2, doing the math, as it were, and the pattern that emerges is not a pretty one (go figure!). Bush says that the Pakistan forces should close the noose on Bin Laden, knowing that it's unlikely to succeed. He say's that the CIA has covered his ass by showing up with the PDB saying the BL is poised to strike. He orders an Al Quaeda madman be tortured, calling him one of the most dangerous terrorists, then calls his 'confessions' actionable intelligence, sending first responders and the rest of us into a fear frenzy. He heard repeated warnings prior to 911 and ignored them. Did he 'enable' 911 so he'd have an excuse to invade Iraq? Did he 'enable' Bin Laden to escape so he'd have a permanent Bogey Man to scare his constituents with? I'm only going where the arrows are pointing. And I'm not liking the destination.

Posted at Highclearing 5/22/06

You know, we might have expected such bald-faced lies from the shrub administration. Recall that in Feb. 2002, we heard that Rummy was going to create an Office of Strategic Misinformation, from which to disseminate (no doubt) all manner of real-sounding stories, both to dismay the ’enemy’ and (reading between the signs) to position the enemy’s enemies to accept the notion of visiting brutality on the enemy and that enemy’s friends. Here’s the link…http://www.onthemedia.org/otm022302.html

Posted at Findlaw 4/8/06

Thank You, John Dean

Dear John, Although your words will, no doubt, be lost on the 59 million who voted for POTUS in 2004, and therefore constitutes, to a large degree, preaching to the choir, I still applaud your engagement in the issue of presidential power and selective release of classified information for political gain. If hypocrisy were a federal crime, and you had the clout to actively pursue the truth-twisters on capital hill, we would long since have seen the lot of them in the brig. And that brings up my point in this letter. You don't have the clout. Nor does Kos at dailykos.com, nor Josh Marshall at www.talkingpointsmemo.com, nor Red Head at www.firedoglake.com, nor any of the rest of us. It seems as if, at the moment, only one person wields the power to apply legal pressure on the White House--Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the CIA outing investigation. One person with clout. Not the Attorney General. Not the Senate Judiciary Committee (well, they actually have the power, but not the inclination). Not the House. It seems that those who are justifiably incensed at the behavior of POTUS and his ilk are powerless, unless and until there is a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate while the hypocrites are still in office. Thus, we must cross our fingers and hope that historically lethargic Democratic voters flock to their polling stations this coming November and are able to reright the imbalance on Capitol Hill, and rid us of the putrid odor that pervades Pennsylvania Avenue.

Posted at Firedoglake 6/19/06

I know I should learn to just keep my big mouth shut. But hey, if you’re gonna set me up like this, I’m gonna take the bait. All of the con artists mentioned in your post go together under the rubric of Fascism, at least as that brand of government is characterized by Laurence Britt (and presented at www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm). In fact, the essential difference between Fascism and other isms (including liberalism) is that fascism tends to emphasize the CorporateCons and the TheoCons (something you would never see in communism, or, for that matter in a pluralistic society like we always thought this one was). Britt points out that the government, in favoring corporations, and in essentially welding corporate and government into a seamless fabric, consolidates power in the hands of a VERY few people. It enriches the government and corporations alike. And the preachy theocrats use religion as a form of social control, while ignoring its fundamental tenets in their own lives and dealings. Sound familiar? Privileging the military, obsessing over national security (even inventing situations to engender fear–a favorite trick of Hitler’s, by the way: consider the Reichstag Fire and its aftermath, in which habeas corpus was suspended, all communications were considered open to government scrutiny, and physical searches no longer needed court orders), and disdaining human rights. Fraudulent elections was another favorite technique of fascist thugs. Cronyism, corruption, scapegoating intellectuals and liberals, institutional or de facto control of the media (listening FOX?). Rampant sexism, homophobia. You name it. The Bush regime has it all! I refuse, hereafter, to call them anything but what they very clearly are–fascists.

Posted at Pressthink 4/10/06

I agree that Murray Waas is the ace, but we shouldn't overlook others with their noses in places they need to be to get the truth out. Although he is relatively quiet about it, hasn't Jason Leopold over at TruthOut.org been chipping away, as well?

Posted on Nexthurrah 6/12/06

Dear emptywheel,
I see that you're now getting a whiff of Jason Leopold's latest addition, regarding Sealed vs. Sealed. Why do I think this is reminiscent of Spy vs. Spy vs. Spy? Sealed vs. Sealed! It's quite incredible. I hope that Jason understands why you and the other bloggers are being so wary of his claims. If true, this latest suggests that his sources are underlings, and not throughly briefed on the details. Otherwise, they'd have known from the beginning that the original 'indictment' was sealed at both ends, precluding any speedy resolution. Given that the protracted proceedings, which have created this skepticism of Leopold on your part, maybe it's time for Murray to ask some pointed questions of his own sources.
Keep fighting the good fight.

Posted at Nexthurrah 6/13/06

Dear emptywheel,
I'm disappointed, of course, that Rover won't be hung out to dry--he's dirty, no denying it. And I fervently share your hope that VPOTUS will be dressed down in court. And I'm sad, really, for J. Leopold, who obviously thought he had something important to say. I'm still curious about Sealed v. Sealed, mind you, and I'd like to think that Rover rolled over and tattled on Cheney. And I think you're way smarter than me when it comes to all of this. So, I'll retreat to my little corner, now, and listen to the grown-ups more, and only speak when I'm spoken to. Apologies for any disquiet my attempts at feistiness may have caused you. Take care. And keep fighting the good fight.
C.