Goodbye and Good Riddance, Joe Lieberman

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman made his farewell speech yesterday to a mostly empty Senate chamber. And for good reason: nobody gives a shit about him.

Whenever I hear the name Joe Lieberman my reaction is "fuck that guy."

Lieberman droned about the need for bipartisanship in the Senate. He recalled the days when things got done by working with friends on the other side of the aisle. But Lieberman lost Democratic support not because he sided with Republicans on occasion, but because not only was he was an opportunistic scumbag who would stab you in the back, but more importantly because he was so goddamn consistently wrong.

He almost blew the 2000 Election (before the Supreme Court actually blew it) when he gnashed his yellow teeth on the Sunday talk shows and couldn't stick to what he knew to be the truth, what he was told by his own advisers. I remember that day well, as I was watching with bleary eyes and suddenly my hair caught fire. Here's the dramatized scene from HBO's fantastic movie, Recount.



The Democratic Party didn't leave Joe Lieberman. Joe Lieberman left the Democratic Party.

He left it when he supported the Iraq War even after we found out the truth. Joe Lieberman left the Democratic Party when he lost his 2006 Democratic primary against Ned Lamont and decided to run as an "independent." After he won the election in a three way race, he then he held his vote hostage to keep leadership positions on certain committees.

Joe Lieberman left the Democratic Party when he endorsed John McCain for president and speechified his mind-numbing patented drone that only Lieberman can drone at the Republican National Convention in 2008.

And don't fool yourself about why he's quitting. If he thought he had a chance to win he would have run in a second. He lost his support because he's become completely untrustworthy. He supported lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 55 until then Rep. Anthony Weiner and other liberals touted it as a great idea and included a Medicare buy-in in the Affordable Care Act. Then Lieberman completely backed off the idea. Was it because of fiscal reasons as he states, or was it payback for feeling rejected by the party he walked away from? So much for that bipartisanship he was mumbling about on the floor yesterday.

Whenever I hear idiots on the right whine on and on that President Obama had majorities* in both the House and the Senate, including that the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate, where Republicans have engaged in record filibusters to stymie every bill that comes their way, all I can think of is three words: Joe. Fucking. Lieberman. He was consistently a thorn in the side of the Democratic party and leadership when his vote really counted. Sort of like McCain was after 2000. The only difference between McCain and Lieberman is that you know McCain is just prison fucking you in the ass out of spite, while Lieberman smiles that yellow toothy smile as he reaches for the Vaseline. Both are nasty, old, bitter warmongers who legislate out of spite while the latter tries to do it in sheep's clothing.

So goodbye and good riddance, Holy Joe. I'd say, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" but actually, I don't give a fuck.

__________________
* And don't get me started about waiting for Al Franken for six fucking months and then Ted Kennedy dying less than two months later. The fact is that Democrats NEVER HAD 60 fucking votes.

Silence Is Golden

Remember when the GOP and Republican talking heads went apeshit when the Obama administration decided to try Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, AKA "The Underwear Bomber" in federal civilian court? Remember when Senate Minority Leader Mitch "The Jowel" McConnell said President Obama was acting “as if [Abdulmutallab] had robbed a convenience store”?

There was a time when the circumstances surrounding Abdulmutallab’s arrest were part of a lengthy national debate about the best way to handle terrorism cases. There were letters, television appearances and press releases calling on the Obama administration to reverse its position and send Abdulmutallab into the military tribunal system due to perceived weaknesses in the civilian court system.

Now that he’s locked up for life, it’s pretty much radio silence. A search for press releases mentioning Abdulmutallab from members of Congress this week turns up just one, from Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), who said the sentence ‘demonstrations that our federal court system is fully capable of bringing terrorist to justice.”

Yeah, they trusted our judicial system so much, they insisted he be sent to a military tribunal. Why do Republicans hate America and its justice system?



*Note: I know Joe Lieberman also insisted on a military tribunal for Abdulmutallab too, but really, let's not delude ourselves for a second that he was ever really a Democrat or even an Independent.

Sitting Together at the State of the Union

Tonight, President Obama will deliver his State of the Union Address to the nation standing in front of Congress and the Supreme Court Justices (we think). As a symbolic sign of decreased rhetoric and bipartisanship after the Tucson shooting tragedy, some members of opposing parties of Congress have decided to break tradition and sit together.

I have one word for this gesture: bullshit.

This isn't something that transpired organically. What a story it would be if when walking into the chamber today, unbeknownst to anyone, members of Congress truly searched for what they claim are "friends on the other side of the aisle" and decided then and there to sit together. But that's not what's happening. This was something that was petitioned and members signed on to.

"I believe that members of both parties can symbolize our common citizenship and common interests by sitting together to hear the president's remarks, rather than divided across the aisle by party," [Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer] said in a statement Thursday.

One wonders whether their symbolism will continue during the address, when Democrats will undoubtedly stand and applaud during sections of the speech. Will the Republicans they're sitting next to do the same?

Will Congressman Paul Ryan's Republican rebuttal to the State of the Union be toned down in rhetoric and criticism? We'll find out tonight, but my guess is that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's Tea Party address will lack such civility.

On a side note, while I praised Senator John McCain a few days back for his views on President Obama's address at Tucson, he couldn't even be bothered to truly find someone at odds with him to sit with, as his "date" tonight is reported to be Senator Joe Lieberman. Nothing like showing bipartisanship by choosing to sit with the senator who describes himself as an "Independent Democrat" and endorsed you in your failed 2008 presidential bid, Maverick.

ADDING... I prematurely published my post before making another point. The reason I'm not really thrilled with this symbolic seating gesture and frankly don't think it matters is because while we usually think of a "it's not what they say it's what they do" mantra when it comes to politicians, the reverse is true in this case.  It's not what they do, such as mixing up the seating arrangement to not appear so divided, but it's what they say, and what they will say and how they say it after the address that's important. Conservatives sitting next to liberals, Democrats sitting next to Republicans means absolutely nothing without taking that symbolism and applying it toward their everyday experiences while working in Congress. I just don't see that happening anytime soon because of who you sit next to for an hour out of the year at the State of the Union. I hope I'm wrong.

Stupid People

You can't charge someone with treason against the US government if they're not a citizen of the US. Morons.

Lieberman Strikes Again!

Nothing shows human compassion, understanding the rule of law and foreign affairs more than an elected official who is the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee making waterboarding jokes.

On foreign affairs, I understand what Guantanamo has come to mean in world opinion. But we can fix that, without closing Guantanamo.

All we have to do is change its name. How about calling it the Richard B. Cheney Resort and Rehabilitation Spa?

I bet the water sports will be really great.

I'd be happy to make Joe Lieberman a reservation.

Dorgan and Ritter and Dodd, Oh My!

Within the last 24 hours we have gotten news of Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan and Colorado Governor Bill Ritter not intending to seek re-election for 2010. And now comes word that Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, whose numbers have been down in the polls and would have had a hard time winning another term, has scheduled a press conference for today in which he is expected to announce his retirement after five terms.

Dodd's seat looks safe as Connecticut AG Richard Blumenthal might step in and run a little earlier than his anticipated run against Joe Lieberman in 2012, but I think you'd have to expect to lose a seat in conservative North Dakota when Dorgan steps down.

Is it really looking that bad for the Democrats in 2010? I personally don't think so. I think the teabaggers' numbers don't match their loudness, despite what certain polls say.

Every Vote Is Important...

...not just Joe Lieberman's, or Ben Nelson's, or Olympia Snowe's. And while these Senators are wielding their power because of an elusive 60th vote and making health care legislation exponentially weaker in the process, the White House assumes that the liberal votes will be there in the end. They shouldn't be so quick to count on those votes if they keep stepping on the throats of liberals and progressives instead of the extortionists they've been trying to appease for the last three months.

Now that the Senate Democratic leadership has stripped the last vestige of the public option — the Medicare buy-in provision — from its bill, progressives are feeling doubly betrayed.

“It’s time for the president to get his hands dirty,” Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, said in a statement this week. “Some of us have compromised our compromised compromise. We need the president to stand up for the values our party shares.”

...“I don’t sleep well,” [Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie] Sanders said. “I am struggling with this issue very hard, trying to sort out what is positive in this bill, what is negative in the bill, what it means for our country if there is no health insurance legislation, when we will come back to it.”

This in combination with Ben Nelson's new movement of the goalposts for his vote is having everyone walking a fine, thread-bare tightrope.

Although I still think this whole thing may backfire, as I believe not passing anything would be a more devastating blow to the Democratic party and the progressive agenda than passing a weak bill, I really do want to see liberals and progressives push back hard and let it be known that they can't be taken for granted. Their votes count just as much.

My Thoughts On Health Care Reform

Since the evening of "Et tu, Lieberman?" I've been grappling with my thoughts and feelings on the current Senate debacle that is the health care bill debate. Because the two have to be dealt with separately.

Emotionally, I want Holy Joe's head on a plate. I want President Obama to shout from the rooftops that Traitor Joe will not live to see another day as chairman of any Democratic party committee. I want Harry Reid to tell Lieberman that he can forget about seeing any legislation with his name on it come to the floor of the Senate. I want every Democratic Senator to call Lieberman out on the Senate floor and expose his hypocrisy so it can live in perpetuity in the Congressional record.

Emotionally, I'm upset at the party caving to satisfy a handful of Senators with their own agenda. Courting Republicans like Snowe was a ridiculous idea from the start. If it were a matter of one vote, I could understand it to a point. But if it was to feign bipartisanship, it was a useless task. All that should have been thrown out the window when they realized they also had to content with Mary Landrieu(LA), Blanche Lincoln(AK) and Ben Nelson(NE) besides The Lieberdouche. If they couldn't get their own party's ducks in a row, what was the point of Snowe in the first place?

Emotionally, I'm truly disappointed at the lack of arm twisting by the President. I know that's not his style and I'm trying to deal with that considering my constant bitching about another certain leader of the free world in the not too far distant past and his bullying ways when he was using his powers for evil instead of good.

But emotion and ideology are intertwined and ideology is not the friend of politics or pragmatism. This is where we need to take a hard look at the bill that we do have instead of the one we wish we had. The bill that ends the insurance conglomorate's practice of rescission. The bill that doesn't allow exclusion due to a pre-existing condtion. The bill that extends coverage and includes subsidies to those that can't afford health care. The bill that makes the insurance companies spend 90% of premiums accrued on health care, not advertising. The bill that would make possible millions who currently don't have insurance and therefore not got to the doctor a chance at preventative care before it's too late.

That's a lot to simply dismiss as "not good enough." There are progressives who have voiced their harsh opposition for legitimate reasons. And that's their job. None of them however, are elected officials. FDL's Jane Hamsher opposes the bill and agrees with Howard Dean who called it "essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate." But it's easy for progressives to stick to their guns, to throw their principles in your face when there's no downside to their stance. It's easy for Howard Dean's idealogy to dictate what he says when he's not in public office. I wonder what his reaction would be if he were still head of the DNC?  Dean can say what he wants now when there is no accountability, even when his record shows otherwise. The Senate bill is similar to Dean's plan when he ran for President in 2004, which didn't have a public option or a Medicare buy-in either.

What do you say to people who currently can't get health insurance because of restrictions that this bill would now make illegal? "Sorry, wait til next time?" Because if history is any indicator, the next time will be somewhere in 2025 if this bill were killed. There is no do over. Not when the process has come this far, farther than at any other time the government has broached the subject of health care reform.

What do you say to the nearly 45,000 people that die every year because they don't have coverage and therefore put off the expensive proposition of a checkup? "Wait it out, maybe this isn't your year"?

I can't do that. It probably would be easy for me to say that, considering I have good health care coverage through my employer, but if the shoe were on the other foot, I don't think I'd like it so much if someone with health insurance was denying my chance at coverage because of their principles.

We need to take a step back, take a breath and look at what this bill provides instead of what it doesn't, and then ask ourselves if it really is "worse than nothing" knowing that nothing is the status quo. Knowing that nothing is unsustainable, and asking ourselves if "worse then nothing" is just hyperbole.

Although I'm incredibly disappointed, at this point I have to let the process play itself out. Yes, they could have done better initially, but this is by no means over as elected progressives are pushing back and once the Senate bill is done with it still has to be merged with the House bill in conference.

Perhaps a public option can be approached through an amendment in a future spending bill. Perhaps over time, Congress can improve loopholes and make health care stronger, just like Medicare was improved and Social Security was improved over time. But I don't know how I could sleep at night advocating the bill be scrapped when it doesn't affect me as severely as those who aren't covered.

Lieberman Doesn't Care About Voters

... He just cares about Joe Lieberman. Why did he decide to kill the Medicare buy-in option? Because it was too good.

...he said he was particularly troubled by the overly enthusiastic reaction to the proposal by some liberals, including Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, who champions a fully government-run health care system.

"Congressman Weiner made a comment that Medicare-buy in is better than a public option, it's the beginning of a road to single-payer," Mr. Lieberman said. "Jacob Hacker, who's a Yale professor who is actually the man who created the public option, said, 'This is a dream. This is better than a public option. This is a giant step.'"

Like I said before, Lieberman only cares about Lieberman. He doesn't care about his constituents, or anyone who will die without health care due to his shenanigans.

There's a special place in hell for people like Joe Lieberman.

Dems Cave To Lieberman

Via TPC:

Senate Democrats "emerged from a special caucus meeting Monday night determined to pass a health-care bill by Christmas -- but without the Medicare buy-in plan that liberals had sought as an alternative to a government insurance option," the Washington Post reports.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg notes Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairman on the Senate health committee, said he would be willing to drop a "public option" government insurance program to win passage of a health-care overhaul.

Said Harkin: "This bill, without public option, without Medicare buy-in, is a giant step forward toward transforming American health care. That's reality, there is enough good stuff in that bill that we should move ahead with it."

Gee, Tom, that was a quick turnaround. I have to say I thought the party would hold Lieberman's feet to the fire and not cave in ONE DAY. Also, does this Christmas deadline seem like bullshit to anyone else? What's the fucking point if any form of public option, including the Medicare buy-in, is dead?

Yes, I know that the consumer protection rules that (hopefully) everyone in the Senate agree with are important steps in overall reform, but I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I feel right now. My only hope is that progressives will give a big FUCK YOU to Rahm, and anyone else in the White House that thinks this is good idea.

Strip Lieberman now.

ADDING... Now that Lieberman is allegedly appeased, I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop and have the Senate include Stupak abortion language to win Ben Nelson's vote. I'm really disgusted right about now. C'mon, progressives. Fight back!

Also... Don't for a second think that this is anything other than the Senator from Aetna sucking the cock of his corporate insurance masters based in Hartford. Joe Lieberman is not about cost containment. Joe Lieberman is not about saving the dying Medicare system. Joe Lieberman is about Joe Lieberman.

Time For Joe To Go

81% Of Dems Want Lieberman Punished For Health Care Filibuster

"Eighty-one percent of Democrats said they would like to see the senator's chairmanship -- which he was allowed to keep despite campaigning for Sen. John McCain in 2008 -- taken away should he sustain a filibuster. Only 10 percent of Democrats said there should be no punishment. Even fewer (nine percent) said they had yet to make up their minds, underscoring just how divisive Lieberman is within the party.

An additional 43 percent of independents agreed that Lieberman should lose his post..."

I'd actually like to see it taken away regardless. Let stop kidding ourselves about this 60 vote super-duper majority. It was never 60. Not with Lieberdouche in the mix.  Not with Ben Nelson in the mix.  Not with weak Senate leadership at the helm.


ADDING... Just three months ago, Holy Joe thought a Medicare buy-in was a great idea.

Healthcare Killers

If years from now, you're wondering what went wrong, remember this.

Two key senators criticized the most recent healthcare compromise Sunday, saying the policies replacing the public option are still unacceptable. Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) both said a Medicare “buy-in” option for those aged 55-64 was a deal breaker.

“I’m concerned that it’s the forerunner of single payer, the ultimate single-payer plan, maybe even more directly than the public option,” Nelson said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Lieberman said Democrats should stop looking for a public option “compromise” and simply scrap the idea altogether.

Yeah, yeah, I know, but Obama this, Obama that. Someone explain me how threatening these shameless motherfuckers with stripping them of their chairmanships would have done any good if they have the fucking balls to go on the Sunday talk shows and basically go on the record saying that anything even remotely close to helping citizens with any form of a public option is a deal breaker.

And Lieberman takes offense at being called the "Senator from Aetna"?! FUCK YOU!!!

Holy Joe Lieberman Strikes Again!

He opposes any form of public option, even one with a trigger. And now, Lieberdouche is fretting while poised over the Medicare buy-in idea, ready to take a dump on it, even though he thought it was a good idea when he ran for Veep just eight years ago.

"'Regarding the 'Medicare buy-in' proposal that is being discussed, we must remain vigilant about protecting and extending the solvency of the program, which is now in a perilous financial condition,' Lieberman said. Back in 2000, Lieberman ran for Vice President on a platform of allowing people under 65 to buy into Medicare."

Time For a Senate Steel Cage Match

This is what I want to see: an elected representative so passionate about his convictions that he or she will don tights and wrestle in a steel cage match to the death with another Senator who disagrees with him.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure (and by "pleasure" I mean the same type of joy you get by cutting) of listening to an NPR interview with Joe "You Know What? I'm Happy..." Lieberman who was appalled at the ad hominem attacks of those calling him the Senator from Aetna because of his filibuster threat that would derail health care if the public option were included in the bill. Joe has no clue why people are so upset and assume he's in the pocket of the insurance industry because, after all, he voted for the Patients Bill of Rights and he supports the anti-trust legislation.

So I want Lieberman to get into Ben Nelson's face, who for some reason is protecting the insurance companies' rights to fix prices and fuck their customers in the ass.

Given what is riding on the [health care] vote, party leaders have been busy talking to holdouts, negotiating deals in an effort to get them on board as wavering lawmakers exert their leverage at a critical moment. In response to demands from Nelson, for instance, the leadership appears willing to drop plans to use the legislation to strip health insurance companies of their antitrust exemption.

Who is Ben Nelson representing? Is he worried about the nearly 30% of his Nebraskan constituents who don't have health insurance or the $2 million and counting he's received from insurance and health care interests in his three campaigns for federal office?

First up in the steel cage, "Holy Joe" Lieberman, who wants to filibuster health care reform if there's a public option inclusion, and Ben "The Helmet Head" Nelson, who is against health insurance anti-trust legislation.  What a couple of gems, huh?  Maybe during the match Patrick Leahy and Dick Durbin will sneak into the cage and pound these assholes over the head with folding chairs.

D.O.J. Decides to Try K.S.M. in N.Y.C. and G.O.P. Loses Their S.H.I.T.

What a bunch of quivering, diaper soiling pussies these GOP and wingnut mouthpieces be. Today, the Department of Justice announced that 9/11 alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would stand trial in New York City  for the 9/11 attacks at the World Trade Center along with four other suspected terrorists currently being detained in Guantanamo Bay.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said he would seek the death penalty against the five defendants if they are found guilty in federal court.

He announced those decisions in a news conference Friday at the Department of Justice. The arrangements would mean that civilian prosecutors would handle those detainees accused of the 2001 terrorist attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, northern Virginia and Pennsylvania, while the 2000 attack against the Cole would remain within the military system.

Holder went on to add that despite the possibility of certain evidence being thrown out of court due to the way it was obtained (damn, that waterboarding!) there was no way he would let these trials go to Federal court had he not been "confident that the outcome would be a successful one."

But the puzzling thing that I want to know is, why do these bed wetting Republicans opposed to this move have such little faith in the United States Justice system? Why do they insist on, at the the very least, a continuation of their fear mongering?

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey: "It shows a willingness to disclose how our intelligence process works and offer [the suspects] a platform in our legal system to gather intelligence for themselves," Mukasey said before an audience of conservative lawyers at the national Federalist Society's annual legal convention in Washington.

Holder's plan "creates a cornucopia of intelligence for those still at large and a circus for those being tried," Mukasey said."

House Minority Leader John Boehner: "The Obama Administration’s irresponsible decision to prosecute the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in New York City puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people. The possibility that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators could be found ‘not guilty’ due to some legal technicality just blocks from Ground Zero should give every American pause."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: “Nobody in America wants these people tried in their local community,” McConnell said, adding that getting a conviction in a civilian court will be “much tougher” and that once the U.S. Justice Department “hands these people over to the court system, they have no more control.

“If they are acquitted, a judge could simply let them go,” McConnell said. “There is no rational basis for bringing these foreigners into the U.S. court system.”

Joe Lieberman: "The terrorists who planned, participated in, and aided the September 11, 2001 attacks are war criminals, not common criminals. Not only are these individuals not common criminals but war criminals, they are also not American citizens entitled to all the constitutional rights American citizens have in our federal courts. The individuals accused of committing these heinous, cowardly acts of intentionally targeting unsuspecting, defenseless civilians should therefore be tried by military commission rather than in civilian courts in the United States...

...It is inconceivable that we would bring these alleged terrorists back to New York for trial, to the scene of the carnage they created eight years ago, and give them a platform to mock the suffering of their victims and the victims' families, and rally their followers to continue waging jihad against America."

These are our intrepid leaders, pissing in their pants at the thought of a fair trial.  Moaning about how our Justice system shouldn't be used for "non-citizens" while (as the Rude Pundit notes), "the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution says, 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial' and then talks about the rights that entails. That really doesn't distinguish between citizen and non-citizen and, indeed, there have been many decisions that allow for fair and speedy trial for immigrants both legal and illegal, as well as for non-Americans extradited to the United States for trial."

Speedy and public trial. Does speedy mean being held for six years without charges?

What are these chickenhawks frightened of?  Do they seriously believe that our supermax prisons, which hold  our most dangerous criminals, can't contain a terrorist? Do they have such little faith in our national security apparatus that even the idea of Gitmo detainees setting a physical foot on precious US soil would undermine our safety? Is McConnell really that dense to think that if by some infinitesimally slim chance KSM is somehow acquitted, he'd be able to walk out the front doors of the courthouse and disappear into the New York City streets?  Of course not.  It's all fear mongering and political posturing for his brainless base. Why would former AG Mukasey think that having Mohammed inside a federal courtroom "discloses our intelligence process" to terrorists?  How is it possible that a former prosecutor like Rudy Giuliani now thinks that the federal courts he worked in as a district attorney now can't handle terrorist cases?  Has he forgotten the name "Zacarias Moussaoui" so quickly?

All which leads to the question: why do these elected officials hate the Constitution (save Boehner who doesn't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence)?   These war mongering, pants soiling chickenhawks should have a little more faith in the system they claim to defend than throwing out the Constitution whenever it suits them.

Joe Lieberman is a Fucking Scumbag

I'm in the middle of a post about the opt out option for health care reform, but I had to put it aside to mention this:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that he’d back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care reform bill. 

Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats and is positioning himself as a fiscal hawk on the issue, said he opposes any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program — even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out of the program, as Reid has said the Senate bill will.

"We're trying to do too much at once," Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now."

Lieberman added that he’d vote against a public option plan “even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line."

Another fucking douche who doesn't understand the difference between health care reform that we have to pay for and a "government entitlement program." We don't need it right now? What do you mean "we," white man? Fine, we'll start by dropping your governement-run health coverage. And now Lieberman is trying to position himself as a fiscal hawk after we've spent trillions of dollars on wars that he supported in Iraq and Afghanistan? Fuck you, Joe. Harry Reid has sent two versions of the bill to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring and Holy Joe already thinks he knows better. At least the other fence sitters are taking a "wait and see" attitude... you know, the responsible thing to do.

The reason this pisses me off to no end is because all I've been hearing is how President Obama is stabbing us in the back for Olympia Snowe's vote just to say reform was a bipartisan effort, when the fact is the 60 vote threshold we all boast about is nothing of the sort. We never had sixty. We have 58 plus two Independents, one of whom I trust. We lost Lieberman when he lost to Ned Lamont in his primary and decided his political life was more important than his political party.

Ben "Helmet Head" Nelson, "Bayou Mary" Landrieu and Blanche "Hatchet Face" Lincoln are all straddling the fence on health care reform as if it were topped with gyrating dildos, not to mention Kent "The Ferret" Conrad and Max "The Insurance Man" Baucus. And now the one dickhead who I was worrying about the whole time but no one mentioned is wielding the knife into the back of the Democratic Party yet again. If we were worried about Ted Kennedy dying before this legislation came to the floor and Robert "Methuselah" Byrd who breaks hip when he blinks too hard to give us our sixty votes, then we were never actually there to begin with. We were never close to sixty. Can we now please stop blaming the White House for trying to coddle Snowe? There's a reason for it, and now we're seeing why. It's time to strip Lieberman of any seniority he has left. They should have done it two years ago.

Great job on Lieberman in 2006, Connecticut!

President Obama on Health Care Progress

When the latest CBO report came out stating that the healthcare reform would cost more than save in the long term I knew it would be the perfect fodder for those opposed to the public option. I also have a feeling that this initial report will be followed up by secondary report amending their first overstated report, as the CBO is accustomed to doing. I thought if President Obama, or someone speaking for the White House didn't come out in opposition to the report, we'd be in a little more trouble when it comes to passing health care reform with a strong public option. Then you have dolts like Lieberman and Landrieu saying we should slow the whole thing down and protecting their health care lobbyist moolah.

Enter President Obama:

That Didn't Take Long

posted by Armadillo Joe

Arlen "Spooky" Specter hasn't even been a Democrat for a week and already he's found a way to adhere (against the better interests of his new party) to the Rules of Engagement in Washington D.C., which is to say that whatever happens is good for Republicans and bad for Democrats and bi-partisanship means kicking a Dirty Fucking Hippie and voting for what the GOP High Command wants.

Besides voting against the president's agenda twice out of two possible votes, he's also gone on national television and denied pledging to be a loyal Democrat (even though he did), has an oft-stated and well-established hostility to pro-union legislation (in a largely blue-collar state) is actually rooting for the guy from the other team to prevail in Minnesota and regrets keeping a racist thug (Jeff Sessions) off the federal bench 20 years ago just because he's now a fellow Senator.

With friends like Specter, who needs Republicans? Why exactly are we glad he's in our caucus?

Spooky's an opportunistic, scheming, vote-chasing fence-sitter who always makes noise like he's going to make the wise and moral choice on any given vote in the senate, then votes for the GOP line anyway. He made it loud and clear that he is switching parties so that he can continue to be a senator, it had nothing at all to do with principle. With him, it never does. His whole political existence is about electoral expediency. In the World's Most Exclusive Club™, it is all about protecting the membership and if Specter needs to switch parties to keep his job, the other 99 (or 98, in this case) will do whatever they can to help. Look at what the national Dems did for LIEber-douche in Connecticut when the state Democratic party rejected him.

If the Obama team had a lick of sense about how to handle this toad (or if Harry Reid had any cojones), they'll threaten him into shutting up, falling in line and being a reliable vote for the president's agenda or face a well-financed primary challenge... then finance a primary challenge anyway. He's served his purpose by embarrassing the Senate GOP caucus, now squeeze him and make him behave or dump him. We don't need Arlen Specter. That seat does not belong to him, it belongs to the good people of Pennsylvania who deserve to send whoever best looks after their interests. In his heart of hearts, that is why he wants Coleman to prevail in Minnesota, for the same reason all those other senators wanted LIEber-douche to prevail in 2006: because they are chummy-chummy in their comfy little club and any means necessary to protect each other (regardless of party) will be taken and exploited. He really thinks that seat belongs to him personally and if he has to wear a different colored tie or part his hair differently or switch political parties to keep it, fine. Arlen Specter will only look after the interests of Arlen Specter.

This all better be some kind of Obama Kung-Fu, because as much fun as it was seeing the GOP lose its collective freaking mind over the weekend, the blush has already worn off and Arlen Specter needs to become Progressive Enemy #1. Until he's gone from the Senate, I ain't giving a dime to the DNC. I'm sending money to whoever announces a primary challenge from Specter's left.

Arlen Specter is, as ever, an unfulfilled promise, a "dependable" vote, just not ever when it really matters, when all that is good and righteous and just and the very future of humanity hangs in the balance. Now, because he has a "D" next to his name, he won't change his essential nature. He's going to enjoy being feted and courted to top this made-up 60-vote threshold (what happened to 51%?) the Rethugli-goons successfully imposed on the Senate in the last eight years. He's a scorpion and we frogs should be wary.

FINALLY!

No more "Independent Democrat."

Lieberman Did What Now?

Looks like the slap on the hand might have pointed Holy Joe Lieberman in the right direction. Well, at least he's actually doing something as Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

In a letter to the Office of Personnel Management, the Connecticut Independent demanded information about the outgoing president's "eleventh-hour transfers of political appointees to career government positions."

"At the end of each Administration, there are always concerns that political appointees may improperly convert to career positions," writes Lieberman. "The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) recently provided a briefing to Committee staff on the process of converting Executive Branch employees from non-career to career positions, often referred to as 'burrowing in.' While I appreciated the information provided at the briefing, I am requesting additional information to ensure that every request to burrow in is transparent, fair and equitable, and free from political influence."

Could Lieberman actually be doing his job and overseeing the Bush administration's abuse of power? Holy check and balances, Batman!