If the Democratic party could have a few more Senators like Joe Lieberman...

Lieberman escalates attack on Iraq critics

By Manu Raju
The Hill
July 31, 2007

Ever since Connecticut Democrats refused to back him for a fourth term in Congress, Joe Lieberman has been burnishing his independent credentials in the narrowly divided Senate while becoming increasingly critical of the Democratic Party on the war in Iraq.

Lieberman, the Democrats’ 2000 vice presidential nominee, insists he is not actively considering joining the Republican Party. But he is keeping that possibility wide open as his disenchantment grows with Democratic leaders. The main sticking points are their attempts to end the war in Iraq and their hesitation to take a harder line against Iran.

“I think either [Democrats] are, in my opinion, respectfully, naïve in thinking we can somehow defeat this enemy with talk, or they’re simply hesitant to use American power, including military power,” Lieberman said in a wide-ranging interview with The Hill.

“There is a very strong group within the party that I think doesn’t take the threat of Islamist terrorism seriously enough.”

Lieberman says he is annoyed by the mudslinging on Capitol Hill and Democrats’ unwillingness to work with President Bush. But his critics say he has contributed to that polarization by his rhetoric and refusal to compel Bush to find a new way forward in Iraq.

As Lieberman sees it, however, the Democratic Party has slipped away from its “most important and successful times” of the middle of last century, where it was tough on Communism and progressive on domestic policy.

“I fear that some people take this position also because anything President Bush is for, they’ll be against, and that’s wrong,” said Lieberman, a staunch advocate of the war. “There’s a great tradition in our history of partisanship generally receding when it comes to foreign policy. But for the moment we’ve lost that.”

Even though he did not reclaim his Senate seat as a Democrat, Lieberman has been instrumental in two bills this Congress central to the 2006 Democratic campaign platform: an ethics and lobbying overhaul bill and a measure to implement recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 bill cleared Congress last week, and the ethics bill could win final approval this week before lawmakers adjourn for August recess.

But if Lieberman seems blunt about the direction of the Democratic Party, it may stem from his loss last August in the primaries to businessman Ned Lamont, who wooed Democratic voters with his anti-war platform. Lieberman calls his ensuing victory in the general election as an independent “inspiring.” And remaining an independent has freed him to repeatedly buck the Democratic leadership on foreign policy and other legislative issues.

“Now that he knows he can win as an independent, he doesn’t need the Democrats at all,” said Kenneth Dautrich, a professor of public policy at the University of Connecticut. “I think it’s absolutely emboldened him.”

Lieberman was the only non-Republican in June to vote against Democratic efforts to pass a resolution expressing no confidence on embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. He has no plans to endorse a Democrat for president, including the senior senator from his home state, Christopher Dodd, and is open to backing a Republican candidate for president. Lieberman also startled Democrats when he lent his support to the re-election bid of Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a top target of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

During this month’s Iraq debate, Lieberman was working behind the scenes strategizing with Republicans and was front-and-center in several GOP press conferences denouncing Democratic tactics to push for an end to the war.

Lieberman was the lone non-Republican to vote against Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) efforts to shut down debate on an amendment to bring troops home by next April. (Reid voted against the cloture motion to file a similar motion at a later time.) Lieberman was also alone when he joined 40 Republicans in voting to kill an amendment by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) to extend the time between troop deployments in Iraq.

“I’m disappointed that I am in so small a minority among Senate Democrats in taking the position that I have,” Lieberman said.

But even as he has played a key role on some of their top domestic initiatives, Democrats have at times kept their distance from Lieberman. Last week, for instance, Reid held a press conference with several Democrats to tout their efforts to pass the 9/11 Commission bill and a homeland-security spending plan. Lieberman, the lead Senate negotiator on the measure and chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, was conspicuously absent.

Reid said it was not intentional to leave Lieberman out of the press conference, but Lieberman said not being invited was “surprising.”

The distance that Democratic leaders appear to be keeping from Lieberman could result from the animosity that the Democrats’ anti-war base has directed toward him. That criticism intensified even more last month, when he suggested military intervention against the Iranian government.

“He used to have a heart and soul, and he used to care about people,” said Leslie Angeline, an activist with the anti-war group Code Pink, who held a 24-day hunger strike until she could meet with Lieberman about his position on Iran.
Angeline is facing an unlawful entry charge after she refused to leave Lieberman’s office during her strike.

Even though Lieberman has become a lightning rod on the left, his prominent chairmanship and influence within the Democratic caucus is safe, for now, given the Democrats’ razor-thin majority. Analysts say if Democrats increase their Senate majority from the 2008 elections, Lieberman’s influence and role could be marginalized within the caucus.

Still, Lieberman is unfazed and says he has no intention of formally rejoining the Democratic Party.

“For now, I find being an independent more fun,” Lieberman said. “The partisanship in this place is out of control. As an independent I’ve got the opportunity to speak out against that.”

In response to a nasty liberal website, DailyKos, where a Photoshopped picture was posted depicting Sen. Lieberman on his knees engaging President Bush in oral sex. The same site is promoting a conference which has been endorsed by the airline JetBlue, and will be featuring Hillary Clinton and John Edwards....to which I wrote in to The O'Reilly Factor...

Bill, thank you for exposing the real merchants of hate and intolerance as the DailyKos. As an independent voter (like many Americans even though they may be affiliated with a particular mainstream party), I can't help but feel that while any of the Democratic presidential candidates feel that it is a fait accompli that one of them may be occupying the residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue come Tuesday, January 20, 2009, nothing is set in stone. Remember the Aesop's fable of the tortoise and the hare? Nothing prevents the Dems to be drubbed out again.

The other night Tammy Faye (Bakker) Messner appeared on what has been regarded in some circles as her final television interview on CNN's Larry King Show. She is a "stage 4" cancer victim. I couldn't watch more than a minute of the interview given that I recently lost my mom to cancer.

From what I saw of it this is sooo what I would call "ratingsploitation." It is both funny and sad how one of the great innovators of cable news, CNN, has turned into a bad parody of FOX News without the gaudy graphics.

I swear that when Larry King dies (unless perhaps that he is a present day reincarnation of God and is immortal) CNN is going to have him taxidermied and turn on a camera on him every night at 6 p.m. till the end of time (or be the last live host) and run a tape loop of his standard questions to which the guest sitting there answers.

What a piece of modern artwork.


Here is a sample of the interview.

CNN interview, part 1 of 3
CNN interview, part 2 of 3
CNN interview, part 3 of 3

The most shocking part of the interview is how Mr. Praise The Lord, Tammy's ex-husband and televangelist, Jim Bakker, has not contacted or given support to his former wife.

This just shows how fucked up "born again" Christians are....

Totally not figuring out what TOLERANCE means, three Christian activist audience members were arrested Thursday after staging a noisy protest as a Hindu chaplain read the opening prayer at the US Senate, branding his appearance an "abomination."
They were ejected from the chamber and charged with an unlawful disruption of Congress.

As Hindu chaplain Rajan Zed started to recite his prayer, one protestor was heard chanting "Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer which is an abomination in your sight. "You are the one, true living God."

It has been a Congress tradition to bring in Faith leaders from various belief systems to give the Senate's daily opening prayer, though it is normally offered by the Congress's Christian (sometimes Jewish) chaplain.

An article on the Internet quotes a group calling itself "Americans United for Separation of Church and State" as condemning the protest. According to a dispatch from AFP, "This shows the intolerance of many Religious Right activists," said the group's executive director, Reverend Barry Lynn. "They say they want more religion in the public square, but it's clear they mean only their religion." The conservative American Family Association had been campaigning against the use of a Hindu prayer in the chamber, asking members to send emails and letters to Senators in protest.

Praise The Lord! Praise The Lord! Live the life that leads you to eternal life!

This is the very reason I think so-called "born again" Christians are such fakers.

I had to make a short trip from my house via Interstate 8 -- which is one of the most busy freeways in San Diego which goes from the Pacific Ocean through to central Arizona.

But I digress.

I was going west in the number 3 lane and eventually had to pass through to the number 4 to exit. I'm watching the traffic and see a Nissan truck just lingering behind in that lane. I signal, and while I move into the lane the jerk decides he has to overtake me. I'm already 90% into the lane that he decides to speed up and while honking like a moron, gives me a most expressive performance of the third finger salute which continued as he passed me to the left. I was not going to lower myself to his level....and as he zooms away I see the classic Christian symbol of a fish and numerous right-wing Bible thumper bumper sticker (and a George Bush for President bumper sticker).

I'm not going to use a broad paintbrush on my impressions of these so-called "Born Again" Christians, but it does show that these people VERY OFTEN don't live the life they want to impose on others.

Ohhhh my day certainly wouldn't be complete without some news about America's real nut bag, Cindy Sheehan, who recently announced she was ending her invovlement with the "peace movement." Cindy who obviously has never had an original thought in her brain uttered today....

Sheehan, who will turn 50 on Tuesday, said Bush should be impeached because she believes he misled the public about the reasons for going to war,

I guess 17 United Nations resolutions against Saddam Hussein and his torture of Iraqis and gassing of Kurds doesn't mean anything.


violated the Geneva Convention by torturing detainees,

Those poor, poor, poor people who with their intolerance to women would soooo quickly put a burhka on Cindy Sheehan and tell her regularly with the true gentlemanliness of a lot of Arab/Muslim men, "Shut up ugly bitch."

and crossed the line by commuting the prison sentence of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

I guess President Clinton didn't cross the line by pardoning known drug dealer and Clinton campaign fundraiser Marc Rich.

She said other grounds for impeachment are the domestic spying program

Never mind that all Presidents have authorized domestic spying programs.

and the "inadequate and tragic" response to Hurricane Katrina.

Look at the all of the devastating flooding in Texas and you don't hear anybody whining and carrying on.

She is planning to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "if she doesn't do what I tell her to do" in Pelosi's San Francisco district. I really hope she does get elected so they REALLY get fantastic representation...and be yet again the laughing stock of the nation.

I couldn't say it any better.

I was listening tonight to a debate on television about the Democrat's latest whine trying to reestablish the famous "Fairness Doctrine." (The Fairness Doctrine, which, until 1987, was a regulation of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which required broadcasters to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner.)

THe Democrats complain it was "detrimental" to the passage of the shamnesty bill. After the usual blathering and blathering I turned it off. Conservative talk radio is entertaining. The Dems (a lot of people who take things WAY too seriously) can get DEADLY boring. And the reason that liberal talk radio has failed is that you have all of these raving "hate Bush" (he is hateable!) left wingers....which does not reflect the true nature of American society. Most Americans these days are more "anti-moron" and into a renaissance of common sense....the Dems have not figured it out. Anyway, I digress. They complain about the concentration of media outlets owned by major media conglomerates. The fact is it is PRESIDENT CLINTON who signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which allowed the creation of the broadcasting conglomerates who have made a success of conservative talk radio. Of course, nobody dares among the Democrats criticize President Clinton lest it will somehow rub off on Hillary......and THAT"s the untold story! It is almost as ridiculous as when I was working in sales for a magazine that I was not allowed to design the ads for my clients "because it isn't fair that you have the ability and equipment and the other sales people don't have that talent and ability."

To get more radio stations broadcasting liberal talk formats on the air, all that needs to happen is for entrepreneurs with deep pockets who support liberal talk radio to acquire more station licenses. Forget about getting liberal talk radio programs syndicated. Concentrate on acquiring licenses and buying stations.

There is a category of radio stations whose licenses are excellent candidates for challenging on the grounds that they don't serve the interest of their communities of license. That category is stations that broadcast in Spanish. A solid case can be made that the term the word "public" in the phrase "the public interest" means only those people who are in the country legally -- citizens or legal aliens. Any station that serves the needs of the illegal alien community is not serving the public interest, any more than a station that airs programs of service to any other criminal group in the country.

If a station specifically targeted the needs of the drug trafficking community, it would be at risk of losing a license challenge. If a station specifically targeted the needs of the welfare fraud community, it would be at risk of losing a license challenge. So, any station that targets the needs of the illegal alien community should also be at risk of losing a license challenge.

By challenging those station licenses, and winning the challenges, operations like Air America could stop having to worry about convincing broadcasters to carry their programs. They'd own enough stations of their own that they would not have to worry about ratings ever again.

Ohhhhh, Hillary, be careful what you ask for!

1. With that exuberance are we going to find more of Bill's used condoms?
2. Aren't we being a bit sexist resorting to asking women to do the cleaning? This sure doesn't sound the woman who said that she was not the type to sit back and "bake cookies" while she "stands by her man"!
3. What a blowhard

Seriously, Hill -- can I call you that? -- stop talking about the past and tell us what YOU plan to do. How are YOU going to conclusively fight terrorism? Hindsight is 20/20, Hill, and you better do a better job than your Democratically run Congress and Senate!

Like the saying goes, Hill, new brooms always sweep well.

Clinton: White House Needs 'Clean Sweep'


Jun 30, 12:18 PM (ET)

By BRENDAN FARRINGTON

(AP) Democratic Presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., answers questions during the...
Full Image

Google sponsored links
Clinton's girl friends - Could 'mischief maker' Bill damage Hillary's presidential campaign?
www.thefirstpost.co.uk

Why Mommy is a Democrat - The book George Bush doesn't want your kids to read!
littledemocrats.net


MIAMI (AP) - "A clean sweep" is needed at the White House because President Bush has fostered "a culture of cronyism, corruption and incompetence," Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday.

The Democratic presidential candidate told nearly 1,000 women at a fundraiser that she would have much work to do at the White House if she won election in 2008.

"After eight years of the Bush administration, we are going to be shocked by what we find," the New York senator and former first lady said. "Somebody said to me the other day if there was ever a time for a woman president it's now because we're going to have to do a lot of cleaning."

The women, many of who brought their daughters to the $100 per plate "Women for Hillary" breakfast, applauded wildly.

"Grab your buckets, grab your brooms," Clinton said. "We're going to have to do a clean sweep because there has been a culture of cronyism, corruption and incompetence."

While I consider myself a political moderate, and while I am DEFINITELY no fan of our incompetent commander in chief, George W, I think it is coming to pass that the Democrats are really no better than the Republicans, and are not great saviors of these great United States. While the President has tried to gain votes by his "shamnesty" plan and by referring to the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps as vigilantes, the Democrats honestly do not have a core issue to run on that would make them an alternative to the Republican administration of the past eight years....especially now that there is interestingly more evidence that the Dem's have tried to take the whole so-called global warming issue as their compelling issue with what is coming out as "junk science" and suspect and erroneous conclusions -- disguised as a real campaign issue. And seeing how the Dem's never denounced Sen. Ted Kennedy's drunken singing tirade.....now wasn't THAT a great representative of his cause during the "shamnesty" debate. (What I am looking forward to see if the news media DARES to show the tons and tons of litter which is inevitably going to be left behind at the great Al Gore Global Warming/Awareness concerts next weekend. I really doubt it.) Of course, true to the Democratic way of thinking (also Republican), they'll find some way to spin the situation just like they seemingly seem to not take responsibility for denouncing the senior Senator's words and actions.

Anyway, here is a very interesting piece from the Chicago Sun-Times about the whole question of "global warming."

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article)

June 30, 2007

BY JAMES M. TAYLOR

In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.

If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.

A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.