« I Do Not Avoid Women, Mandrake ... | Main | Terrorist Threat Open Thread »

August 09, 2006

Comments

So, a question for our conservatifs out dere. If you were to vote in CT, (assuming a local Repub, Lamont and Yo ho Joe), who would you vote for?

This year, I'd vote for Lamont.

I'm making it my mission to remove as many incumbents as I can this year, unless that means voting for Kathleen Harris over Bill Nelson. Ric Keller's opponent actually sounded fairly reasonable for a while, until he decided that Ric's bad hairpiece was what really made him an unworthy candidate; he kind of lost me on that point.

Removing incumbents strikes me as a good general rule - I like to keep some room for exceptions, but I approve of churn. And doubly so right now, when both parties in Congress have done such an absolutely terrible job of resisting the executive power grab.

Is it possible that he will be the next/new sec of def, I read this at Andrew Sullivan website. He mentions him as a possible but certainly better. could this become a reality. Would he be a bert scretary of defence?

Would he be a bert scretary of defence?

Possibly the evil bert variety.

Wait...we're talking about Lamont, here? As SecDef? Please, shoot me now.

Would he be a bert scretary of defence?

He's more of an Ernie to me.

Oh, you must be referring to Lieberman. Well, probably not a good choice there, either.

Slarti,

Without seeing the actual site, I am rather sure it was Lieberman that is being suggested for SoD.

That said, the floor is open for which muppet would be the right choice. I nominate Mr. Snuffleuphagus -- think of the new stealth weaponry (and yes, I know he is now revealed to all).

I'm going with Gonzo. Fozzy Bear is right out.

Good lord, the obvious choice is the Cookie Monster.

sorry word was 'better' and yes it was LIEBERMAN

Oscar at least knows the importance of good armor. And he'd be unlikely to say "My Goodness!"

Then again a mumpet might do a better job than Rummy?

spelling is terrible tonight sorry 'muppet' (it is 12.30am)

Ugh,

While Cookie Monster was my first hero growing up, and the Defense Department does have a voracious appetite, I think Cookie Monster would be a poor choice for Defense Secretary in most administrations. This one, which seems to prefer to leave bigger messes behind them than when they started, might make him a consideration.

spelling is terrible tonight sorry 'muppet' (it is 12.30am)

This one, which seems to prefer to leave bigger messes behind them than when they started, might make him a consideration.

I don't know, I view Cookie Monster as an independent thinker who won't back down from doing what's right for the cookies, er country. Plus, whenever Bush says something clearly stupid or insane in a meeting, he can launch into "C is for Cookie" until the President shuts up. In addition, we wouldn't have to put up with Rumsfeld asking and answering his own questions at press conferences any more ("Is war difficult? Yes. Do things go wrong? Of course." etc. etc. etc.), as Secretary of Defense Monster could just respond by devouring all the cookies in sight (take that Helen Thomas).

Helen Thomas is already a couple of cookies short of a Lunchable; give her a break.

Come on, people, the obvious choice is the Swedish chef as Runsfeld's replacement. It's possible it's already happened and we haven't noticed.

Come on, people, the obvious choice is the Swedish chef as Runsfeld's replacement. It's possible it's already happened and we haven't noticed.

That's a good point. Also, I think Beaker has taken over as President.

In the next administration, Rumsfeld and Cheney will be sitting with those old-guy muppets up in the balcony, yelling out "Go f- yourself!" George Bush, in the meantime, will have been revealed to be Gonzo.

Oh crap, Ugh is right. He's Beaker, not Gonzo.

I like the NYT headline about Lamont's win: "The Revenge of the Irate Moderates".

I'd be thrilled if all Senators were held to a two-term limit, just as the President is, but I won't hold my breath for that to happen.

Heh. Back in '94, of course, support for term limits was the sine qua non of any self-described conservative. Which makes the cries of anguish from the right (and the faux-center) over the fate of Poor Joe all the more entertaining.

I put this in the wrong thread earlier:

The way I think of Lieberman is; he has appeared on tv at least once a week for the last 6+ years, for every appearance he had something bad to say about Democrats, and usually something good to say about Republicans.

Republicans rightly would never tolerate behavior like that.

Heh. Back in '94, of course, support for term limits was the sine qua non of any self-described conservative. Which makes the cries of anguish from the right (and the faux-center) over the fate of Poor Joe all the more entertaining.

Tell me about it. I used to laugh at the term-limits petitioners in my neighborhood, and occasionally toss the standard one-liner -- We have term limits, they're called elections -- in their direction. But then it slowly dawned on me that the turnover in the Congress was a lot more like that in the old Politburo, than what I was told in high school civics.

One thing I'm not hearing from the usual media gasbags is how much Lieberman's humiliation owes to a growing hostility to incumbents of both parties. The Republicans will catch the worst of this, simply because they've got the majorities. But I can easily name at least half a dozen Democratic congressmen who inspire no love among their party rank and file. Lieberman got hammered the way he did mainly because he was the most egregious sell-out.

"Come on, people, the obvious choice is the Swedish chef as Runsfeld's replacement. It's possible it's already happened and we haven't noticed."

You mean after Democrats prevented him getting on the Supreme Court?

Or was he one of the Democratic Senators who prevented another Republican Supreme Court nominee from getting on the court with his eloquent point?: bork, bork, bork, bork.

I forget.

he can launch into "C is for Cookie" until the President shuts up.

C may be for Cookie, Ugh -- but the Internet is for porn.

Would someone please expain this Lieberman for Sec of Defense idea?

Leaving the politics aside, what experience does he have - military, technical, administrative, etc. - that is remotely useful for that job?

Jowls?

Not sure why I said that; I doubt that having jowls can gain you much "life experience" credit hours at even the most tenuously accredited of universities.

Leaving the politics aside, what experience does he have - military, technical, administrative, etc. - that is remotely useful for that job?

he likes to kiss GWB's cheeks.

"The Revenge of the Irate Moderates".

"We haven't actually seized Connecticut ..."

Plus, whenever Bush says something clearly stupid or insane in a meeting, he can launch into "C is for Cookie" until the President shuts up.

So whenever Bush is talking then?

what about The Count? he could count off the dead soldiers. or, if that became too depressing, he could count off the cost of the war - in millions.

Back on topic, this, if true, is a sufficient explanantion of Lieberman dislike.

"The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do." Sounds like an outtake from Goodfellas.

So whenever Bush is talking then?

Yes, pretty much.

Now, if someone with good youtube/video skills can put together a video clip of Bush speaking with Beaker's "Meep Meep Meep" as the audio, that would make my day.

C may be for Cookie, Ugh -- but the Internet is for porn.

???

what about The Count? he could count off the dead soldiers. or, if that became too depressing, he could count off the cost of the war - in millions.

I forgot about The Count. No SecDef is complete without a monocle.

C may be for Cookie, Ugh -- but the Internet is for porn.

???

Avenue Q.

but the Internet is for porn

I am fairly sure that if they took all porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called "Bring Back the Porn"

To make that scan, it should be
-----
C may be for Cookie, but Internet for Porn
C may be for Cookie, but Internet for Porn
C may be for Cookie, but Internet for Porn
yeah, porno, porno, porno, that's for me

(spoken)
you know, you can play the horsies on the Internet
and you can post other people's personal information on the Internet
and you can bilk people out of money using the internet, but who cares about that, cause

(repeat refrain)

I think this would make a good Sesame Street song, all right:

I listen to all voices
but mine is the final decision
And Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job.
He's not only transforming the military,
he's fighting a war on terror.
He's helping us fight a war on terror.
I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld.

(break)

I hear the voices,
and I read the front page,
(ritardando)
and I know the speculation.

(pause)

But I'm the decider,
and I decide what is best.

repeat:
But I'm the decider,
and I decide what is best!

"Would someone please expain this Lieberman for Sec of Defense idea?"

It's been going around for years; since at least late 2004. Some have said that it's come from Lieberman's office. Whether there's any truth to that, or not, I have no idea.

As for experience, what sort of experience did Senator John Tower have?

Answer: theoretically, the experience of being able to get past a vote in the Senate, although that didn't work out for him.

But if you haven't noticed, that's the primary necessary qualification to be SecDef. After that, an interest in Defense is nice.

More muppets:

GWB = Beaker
Cheney = Snuffleupagus
Rumsfeld = Gonzo
Rice = ???
Karl Rove = Miss Piggy
John Yoo = Dr. Bunsen Honeydew
Krauthammer = Statler
Kristol = Waldorf

Here's an interesting question.

Does Joe have to switch party registrations in order to run under the "CT For Joe" ticket?

I don't mind if he wants to run as an independant. But I don't want him campaigning talking about how he's "saving his party". His party barely exists and as of right now he's the only member. If it needs saving already what does that say about Joe?

Martin Peretz, bolt upright at 3AM:

"We got the 8th in Georgia, at the price of the potential White House." Such a deal!

Ah:

Rice = Rowlf the Dog

Rumsfeld = Gonzo

Rummy's way more Crazy Harry if you ask me.

They're all Crazy Harry, except for maybe Rice.

Bush=Elmo
Cheney=Oscar
Rumsfeld=Grover
Bill Frist= Big Bird
Rice=Dorothy(Elmo's goldfish)

lj,

No, Frist is Slimy (Oscar's worm). Can't you just see Cheney reading Trash Gordon bedtime stories to Frist?

Frist is Slimy

Rove has to be Slimy.

Bush could also be Super Grover, from the wikipedia entry:

Hilarity ensues when Super Grover usually crashes into something. Often, although it is well-intended, Super Grover does something to make the situation worse. He sometimes learns something as a result, although more often than not, this is not the case.

Though I think the following would be a bit more accurate:

Tragedy ensues when Super Grover usually crashes into something. Often, and it is intended, Super Grover does something to make the situation worse. He sometimes learns something as a result, although more often than not, this is not the case, and when it is it is the wrong thing.

And yes, I have nothing better to do so thbhtbb (I mean, you try reading the tax code all day).

Muppets, hell, though. This Administration could only really be portrayed by the Spitting Image guys.

"Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan's close friendship was depicted rather than a political friendship as a love affair. One such sketch saw Thatcher and Reagan in a passionate kiss around the back of what looks like an area of an airport. At the end, when Thatcher says 'Bye!' and leaves, Reagan calls back, "So long, honey-bun!", before turning to the camera and saying, "What a fine-looking woman. Too bad I'm only screwing her country!"

George and Tony indeed.

IJWTS that regardless of anything else, anyone who writes a manifesto that includes a sentence that starts off "Myself and tens of [...] are going to...," has no business writing a manifesto.

Myself says so. Myself feels strongly about this.

Myself also strongly dislikes the renewed 97 degree heat here. Myself believes that myself and others all share this feeling.

Yourself might even consider a dip in the ice-cold pool, if only to get yourself cooled down a tidge?

"Yourself might even consider a dip in the ice-cold pool, if only to get yourself cooled down a tidge?"

Myself acknowledges that it's a thought. Myself will consider it, on top of myself's technique of frequent showers, and slavering water over myself, er, I.

Myself looks forward to the end of August, and then September, and the return of decent weather, although myself has been spoiled by relative coolness in the eighties the past four days. Myself years, however, for air-conditioning (this apartment was advertised as having such when myself moved in; it's a major part of why myself took it; sigh; myself didn't realize landlords could just lie about that sort of thing; silly myself.)

Okay, myself is done with the myself shtick now, having reduced the horse to cellular parts.

I think y'all have Rice miscast - she's clearly Sam the American Eagle. Back ramrod-straight, with a pinched expression, she tries to muddle through whatever disaster has inexplicably surrounded her this week. And I'm pretty sure there was some Wayne and Wanda in that article about her Ipod.

Krauthammer = Statler
Kristol = Waldorf

Naw, Derbyshire and VDH...

Who would be Don Music? (Scotty McC?)

Wow! An innocent spelling mistake and I have hijacked the thread.

OK, and what about Animal?

OK, and what about Animal?

Ledeen. or Addington.

"Me Animal! EAT DRUMS! EAT DRUMS!"

"OK, and what about Animal?"

Sure, I remember Lou Grant, and Animal.

I can believe this. I am in dismay. The country is being robbed blind, and the Democratic Party can't even stay together.

I'm in dismay that a guy who puts out a blacklist of academics (Lieberman) gets called a moderate in mainstream presses and it takes us five years to out the creep.

I am in dismay that the pro war position is called centrism, while the antiwar position is extremism. Most of the true Republicans I know -- the old small government Republicans who have lost control of their party -- opposed this war. And forget about the war itself: there is nothing ideologically centrist about supporting the complete failure of reconstruction.

The Democrats need to get on the ball and reframe the narrative. They need to bring out old-school Republicans -- of which there are many -- who opposed this war to create a bipartisan image of critique as centrist and "waving the white flag by voting for Ned Lamont" as extremist thinking.

"....while the antiwar position is extremism...."

That may have been the case in 2002, or 2003, but hardly since then, and most certainly not in the last year or two.

Gary, you don't think the antiwar position has been called extremism in the last year or two? Do you listen to and read the same media, and especially the same Republicans, that I do?

Anyone who actually stands up for an antiwar position is portrayed as a wild-eyed member of the "far left", who can't be trusted to defend the country. Even though the position is that of the majority of the public, it's somehow still extremist.

"Gary, you don't think the antiwar position has been called extremism in the last year or two?"

That's irrelevant. There are people who will go on calling it extremism unto doomsday. The point is what most people think, and what's a mainstream position, and most people not only don't think being against this war is an extremist position, but in fact most people now are against this war.

See that poll I previously both blogged on my own blog and mentioned here. Story.

Eighty-one percent of Democrats say the war was not worth fighting, and 70 percent feel that way "strongly."

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling (ITEM)? Approve Disapprove
a. The situation in Iraq 36 62

12. If a candidate for Congress supports the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, would that make you more likely to (support) that candidate for Congress, more likely to (oppose) that candidate, or wouldn't it make much difference in your vote?

More likely More likely Wouldn't make to support to oppose much difference opin.
23 38 39

All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?

Worth fighting: 39
Not worth fighting: 59

There are still people today who say the Vietnam war was worth fighting; but the majority of the country don't think so now, and didn't think so in 1975. It doesn't matter what the loony fringe says.

To be clear, I'm not saying that either still thinking the war should be fought, or that it shouldn't, isn't still a mainstream position; both are. My point is that neither position is an extremist position.

Avenue Q.

Live version here, only extant MP3 I know of here. [Best method for the latter, incidentally, is to shag file directly once you figure out what its dynamically embedded name is then play on WinAmp or whatever.] It's sung by the Avenue Q character Trekkie Monster.

I am fairly sure that if they took all porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called "Bring Back the Porn"

There was a Robot Chicken sketch much to that effect, actually.

LOL Anarch. I only knew the World of Warcraft adaption, hadn't seen the original :)

An innocent spelling mistake and I have hijacked the thread.

Please. Threads have been hijacked on scantier grounds. I think some of our best work has been done on threadjacks.

"We", if you count us as a group of borderline-psychotic, squabbling, tone-deaf minstrels, all playing to a different time signature.

According to today's NY Times, Dick Cheney is warning that this election result will encourage "Al Qaeda types".

"borderline-psychotic, squabbling, tone-deaf minstrels"

So when a thread threatens to break out into such a silly threadjack, does that count as Pre-Minstrel Syndrome?

Consider a barrage of virtual spitballs headed in your virtual direction, accompanied by virtual moans of virtual dismay/admiration.

Gary, the sentence you objected to was "I am in dismay that the pro war position is called centrism, while the antiwar position is extremism." From the first part of the sentence it's clear that the idea that the antiwar position is extremism is something that Ara is not endorsing but complaining about.

I obviously don't disagree with your point that the majority position among the public is antiwar, since I made that point in the last sentence of my comment, and I think Ara agrees with you as well.

What I (and apparently Ara) find frustrating is that the media often still treat antiwar people as extremists, and the Republicans certainly do. That's not irrelevant.

So, what does it say when my first thought about this headline on cnn.com right now:

PLANE TERROR PLOT DISRUPTED

is to think that its time to whip up hysteria for the fall elections? I mean, there's this and there was that earlier alert about 11 Egyptian students "missing" when they didn't show up for class.

Ugh,

If so, it appears to be working, as this morning NPR seemed to be talking about nothing else on my drive.

Slarti,

Such reactions are, of course, why I make such horrible puns. After all, the beauty of any pun is in the "Oy" of the beholder.

Are you by any chance familiar with the earlier work of Spider Robinson, DTM?

"We", if you count us as a group of borderline-psychotic, squabbling, tone-deaf minstrels, all playing to a different time signature.

Obsidian Wings, by PDQ Bach.

Yeah, that about sums it up.

Slarti,

"Are you by any chance familiar with the earlier work of Spider Robinson, DTM?"

Yes, but I heard that one long before I read it in his books.

"Thread drift" is the far more appropriate description and term than "threadjack."

"According to today's NY Times, Dick Cheney is warning that this election result will encourage 'Al Qaeda types'."

Indeed, because they've been honing their precinct-organizing mad skillsz.

'It will help terrorists' is the Republican version of 'It's for the children.' A handy means of drawing support for whatever you wish to support regardless of the facts on the ground. I would be amazed to learn that anyone affiliated with al Qaeda cares one way or the other about how Joe Lieberman did in his primary election.

I was going to say something much like that, Andrew, but I was afraid that in doing so, I might encourage the terrorists.

Besides, everyone knows that Ned Lamont is a communist.

By heredity, no less.

Gary, don't forget that he's also a closet Republican. And he's given money to Lieberman in the past, so he must really agree with him on everything. Just one of those typical wild-eyed moderate communist Republican Democrats.

KCinDC: yep: a 60s throwback hippie closet Republican al Qaeda sympathizer.

Ned Lamont: the ideological equivalent of a human pretzel.

typical wild-eyed moderate communist Republican Democrats.

Man! I hate those guys!

A human pretzel? Are you suggesting he's a threat to the president? Don't give Cheney any ideas.

Oh, for lord's sake.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman seized on the terror arrests in Britain today to attack his Democratic rival, Ned Lamont, saying that Mr. Lamont’s goals for ending the war in Iraq would constitute a “victory” for extremists, including those accused of plotting to blow up airliners traveling between Britain and the United States.

“If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,” Mr. Lieberman said at a campaign event at lunchtime in Waterbury, Conn. “It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”

Is anyone going to buy this garbage? Vote for Lamont and you're strengthening terrorists?

I guess it sounds entirely sensible to you, though, DaveC?

Incidentally, although everyone has been understandably fixated on Holy Joe, I'd like to point to a Democrat running for Congress that I hope all the Democrats will get behind, and pay some attention to, and talk up, and donate to, and that's Ed Perlmutter, who stands a quite good chance of winning the Colorado 7th in November. Go read about him. He strikes me as a good guy.

I should note that the 7th is an open seat, since the odious Bob Beauprez is retiring to run, ick, to be our governor. (May he lose!)

From what I've heard of her, I quite like Claire McCaskill, who's running for Senate in Missouri. The same part of me that loved the fact that Gore had worked on the Reinventing Government initiative loves things like this (from a fairly obscure part of her web site):

"As State Auditor, Claire McCaskill revolutionized her office, turning it into a determined watchdog over taxpayers' money and becoming "one of the most active and effective auditor's in Missouri History," according to the Columbia Daily Tribune. By her second year as auditor, the press had already noticed. The Kansas City Star praised McCaskill for having "energized the auditor's role, turning the office into one voters can expect will serve as a true watchdog, awake and alert to government abuses, and not just in spending."

Now in her second-term with nearly eight years in office, McCaskill has a long list of groundbreaking audits. And the media still laud her continued efforts: "McCaskill has been a fireball of a state auditor," The Kansas City Star wrote in 2004, while the St. Joseph News-Press said her unrelenting audit probes on all agencies -- even the sacred cows -- proved she is "fiercely independent."

McCaskill received the Missouri Press Association's Sunshine Award for auditing all levels of government on how well they followed Missouri's open records law when asked for access to public information. She also received the State Employment Advocate Award for her commitment to hiring and retaining minorities in an office that previously lacked diversity. (...)"

(posted this in the wrong thread just now; have tried to move it to the right place. The perks of SuperUserPowers ;) )

Via Unfogged, Fox News maintains its proud tradition of journalistic excellence:

"Remember the mountain of skulls in Cambodia? It's the Democrats new reality now that the anti-war rabble has tasted blood by taking Lieberman down."

And you wonder why I object when people assume I'm a Republican? ;)

Ah, yes: "The Khmer Rouge wing of the Democratic Party is making a bid for a complete takeover."

Tasteful.

And here's a particularly hilarious part: "The Daily Kos — the left's Internet muscle operation — laid out plans for the next few days: [...] slime Lieberman by calling him a sore loser...."

Thank heavens Republicans would never do anything so slimey!

Truly great comedy.

Andrew: it was a horrible mistake, but it will never happen again ;)

Personally, I loved the equation of calling people sore losers with killing them.

Well, I do find it amusing that Democrats and Republicans can at least agree on one thing.

Joe Lieberman: bringing people together...to complain about Joe Lieberman.

hilzoy,

You are provisionally forgiven...if only for your sweet proposal earlier. ;)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad