It’s about Ideas, Ideally

TNR's Peter Beinart opines that Democrats' best midterm election strategy is to be vague about agendas and clear about NOT being George W. Bush. And he makes some pretty good points:

Today, according to the Pew Research Center, Democrats are 16 points more likely to declare their enthusiasm for voting. Only 42 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are happy with their party's performance, down 19 points from 2004. And a plurality of * Republicans* think most members of Congress don't deserve reelection. This year, in other words, disgust will likely propel Democrats to the polls and leave Republicans sitting at home.

For the White House, getting these surly GOP couch potatoes to vote is the only way to prevent political Armageddon. And the best way to do that is to get them so enraged about the Democrats that they forget their frustration with their own side. That's why congressional Republicans spent the summer dredging up wedge issues like gay marriage, abortion, and flag-burning. It's why Dick Cheney said Ned Lamont's Connecticut Senate primary victory might embolden Al Qaeda. And it's why Republicans keep trying to bait Democrats into unveiling a detailed agenda--in hopes of convincing Republican voters that, no matter how disappointing Bush has proved, the other guys would be worse.

Beinart says the GOP wants Democrats to submit a "Contract with America"-type plan, so that disenfranchised conservative voters have something to rally against. Democratic candidates' best strategy, he writes, is to "stick to vacuous slogans like 'time for a change' and 'had enough?'".

It sounds logical, yet I completely disagree. Being a "party of no ideas" is a solid plan to recapture the House (and dare we hope, the Senate) this fall, but is it really the direction we want to go? Does this strategy truly embody the party to which belong?

Despite history and experience telling us otherwise, I still believe that our political objectives should revolve around ideals rather than elections and power. Maybe it plays into the GOP's short-term plans, but I think congressional Democrats need to submit a "Contract with America"-type plan so we can redeem our values from exile and put our ideals into action instead of activist blogs.

Democrats have a unique opportunity this fall to remind this country that morality is not the exclusive domain of the Right. We count ourselves amongst the ranks of a majority of Americans who are dissatisfied outsiders looking in as the GOP leads us into one clusterfuck after another. Sure it can cost us a few seats in Congress this year, but we can make our ideals heard by the millions of morally strong Americans who label themselves as "independents" because Karl Rove and Fox News have brainwashed them into believing "liberal" is a 4-letter word.

Perhaps there's an inherent flaw in liberal DNA that causes conflict between ideals and a victorious political strategy. Republicans seem much more capable of sacrificing core beliefs for electoral gain, as they rationalize that one must control the legislature in order to legislate change. Maybe they're right…but isn't having uncompromised ideals the best thing about not being a Republican?

Can’t stop the follow up

It's amazing that Joe Lieberman didn't catch this one, but as I pointed out in yesterday's follow-up post, Florida's Katherine Harris believes that only Christians should be elected to political office because everyone else will burn in hell.

But what about us God-fearing, Jew-type people?

Apparently wary of offending the Semitic vote (Broward County specifically is like Hymie Town South), Kat's campaign is backing off some of her strong rhetoric. A statement released yesterday said:

Harris was speaking to a Christian audience, addressing a common misperception that people of faith should not be actively involved in government. Addressing this Christian publication, Harris provided a statement that explains her deep grounding in Judeo-Christian values.

In other words, I was pandering to Jesus freaks, so cut me some slack you damn Heebs!

Uh oh…I mean, did I mention that my new campaign manager is the grandson of Holocaust survivors? That should get me a few kike votes.

Shit, I did it again. Umm…I voted in Congress to recognize the 58^th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel – and everybody knows that the 58 ^th anniversary is the one that really matters.

Please vote for me. I'd kiss your Jew babies, except I'm worried about catching the plague. You understand, right Shlomo?

Follow-up Frenzy

I stumbled across some follow-up items corresponding to a few old posts, and once I realized that rehashing the past is a lot easier than creating something new, I jumped on board with vim and vigor (is the word "vim" ever used without "vigor"? It's kind of like "ensuing" and "kickoff", right? Please send any examples of vim without vigor to patrow.blog@gmail.com or leave a comment at the bottom of this post).

Anyway, Katherine Harris – she of the hilariously under-attended campaign rally – has a mighty high opinion of herself. In an interview with the Florida Baptist Witness (a notoriously impartial and legitimate media outlet), Kat talked about why Floridians should vote her into the US Senate:

…why should people care? If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is all right. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take Western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God, and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don't know better, we are leading them astray and it's wrong.

Hear that, Florida? The fate of western civilization hinges on your vote for Kat. That's no exaggeration…not at all.

Moving on, it appears that Gil Gutknecht is both a visionary and a trendsetter, because now another GOP congressman has returned from a trip to Iraq and suddenly had a change of heart about American troop involvement. You know, at this rate we convince every Republican by Christmas…2028.

Finally, Joe Scarborough's "Is Bush an idiot?" bit can be seen in its entirety thanks to the good folks at You Tube . Good times.

More Liberal than Lieberman

Joe Scarborough, former Republican congressman and current TV talking head, is on the outs with his party because of a reoccurring segment on MSNBC's Scarborough Country entitled "Is Bush an Idiot?" Somehow, he actually gets more than a simple "yes" out of the question.

Anyway, Scarborough gave an interview to Salon in which he did some of the most un-Republican things he could do: admit errors in judgment, credit liberals for their pre-war insights and call the president a lot of synonyms for "dumbass". Here are a few highlights:

Obviously since the things [liberals] were predicting about Iraq have been proven to be accurate, or at least more accurate than what the administration was saying back in 2003, you certainly have to tip your hat to them.

…when [Bob Woodward] asked Bush if he talked to Colin Powell about the invasion of Iraq, and he says, "No, I didn't feel the need to, because I knew how he was going to respond, that he was against the war," which sort of sends a chill up your spine, because those are the people you want the president talking to. You want him asking tough questions of aides who actually disagree with him… The president is a man who's not only politically incurious, but is also a leader who does not like dissent, and I think that's very dangerous.

…I think if the president had asked tougher questions in February of 2003, we wouldn't find ourselves where we are in 2006.

…government spending grew by 3.4 percent annually under Bill Clinton the Marxist. Spending has grown by 10.5 percent under George Bush the fiscal conservative. I always say: Give me that choice, I'll take the Marxist at 3.4 percent any day of the week.

…here we have a Republican administration and a Republican Congress…where staying in power is more important than staying true to the values that put you in power in the first place.

I know this guy was part of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" crew and I have dozens of pages of his less-than-stellar quotes, but folks on both sides of the aisle have to admit – the guy makes a lot of sense. Frankly, if more Republicans were talking like Joe Scarborough this election season, Democrats wouldn't stand a chance of picking up seats in either house of Congress.

Thank God he's on TV.

Has he heard the one about the guy in the Oval Office?

Reports out of Washington confirm that the Interloper's fourth grade intellect matches his fourth grade sense of humor:

…the first frat boy loves flatulence jokes. A top insider let that slip when explaining why President Bush is paranoid around women, always worried about his behavior. But he's still a funny, earthy guy who, for example, can't get enough of fart jokes. He's also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides…

Damn, strike a solitary checkmark in the column entitled "Reasons to Like the Guy".

It’s the most wonderful time of the year

You might not know this, but Jews don't get Christmas presents (I blame Joe Lieberman). That's why each year I'm anxious like a kid waiting on Santa for the debut of the new fall season…and that time is now.

Kicked off by the seemingly premature premiere of Prison Break last night (I Tivo'd it, natch), the 2006 season is pocked with the return of some highly anticipated series, the unfortunate cancellation of a some others, and the bizarre existence of too many shows that no one could possibly enjoy.

Salon takes a look at six shows in the latter category, including two shows for which I own a season pass: an action series of which I've seen every episode of its six seasons, yet haven't enjoyed one minute of in the last four years; a teen soap that allegedly jumped the shark in its third season, the first year I watched; two talk/news shows featuring an old guy an gal; a cop show that I originally thought was about who really deserves coffee; and finally, an adult-themed show that somehow makes basic cable lesbianism look unsexy.

That list is a fair start, but it's nowhere near enough. So without further adieu I bring you "PatRoW's First Annual List of Stupid Shows Stupid People Like":

• Law and Order: Criminal Intent – OK, I get it. Vincent D'Onofrio is super cop. He knows EVERYTHING! If that dude explains one more obscure 7 ^th century eastern European reference and uses it to solve a murder, I swear, I'm going to burn my collector's edition DVD of The Cell.
• CSI: Miami – I actually enjoy watching this show…but not for the drama and CERTAINLY not for the acting. CSI: Miami offers primetime's best drinking game. Every time Horatio Caine takes off his sunglasses, you drink; every time he puts on his sunglasses, you drink; every time his dramatic pause lasts more than two seconds, you drink; every sweeping camera shot of Miami's intercoastal waterway, you drink; every time one of the leads gets trapped in a paper bag and can't act his way out, you drink. I promise you'll be drunk by the second commercial break.
• Grey's Anatomy – I put this show here for two reasons: 1) I needed to prove that a show can earn my wrath without being a colon-titled spin-off; and 2) it sucks…hard.
• House – So the premise (doctor's are assholes) is actually a good one, but Dr. House is so much worse than that. Not only is he as unlikable as any character could be, but he's WRONG all the time. It's a good thing that all these patients with nose bleeds somehow find their way in front of the great House, because who else would diagnose them with colon cancer, AIDS, lupus, ALS, Parkinson's and Herpes in the span of sixty minutes? Why does EVERY FUCKING EPISODE have to be the same?
• Any reality show when the contestants tell one another not to get mad because "it's just a game". Is it? Thanks for reminding me, jerkoff.
• Numb3rs – can the FBI solve a case without the help of a college professor mathematician? Why don't they just hire the guy full time already? No show on TV gives me worse heebie-jeebies, both from the atrocious premises and the gratuitous use of chalkboards.

What, you ask, nothing on those crap-fests on the WB or UPN (now combined to form the CW)? It's kind of like yesterday's post – if a show airs and PatRoW isn't there to watch it, does it really exist?

If a tree falls in an airport and no one is there to see you speak…

Remember Katherine Harris? She was the Florida cunt Secretary of State who bungled the 2000 presidential election. In other words, she is directly responsible for the fraud that facilitated George W. Bush's presidency. Anyway, now serving in the House of Representatives, Harris decided to trade up and ride the wave of GOP popularity into the US Senate.

How's that working for you, Kat?

In a brilliant/depressing play on words, Harris held a press event last week in an airplane hanger entitled "Soaring for the Senate". As clever as the pun was, the real joke was that how many of Harris' high-profile endorsers showed up for the event.

None of the nine officials listed on her event flier appeared, leaving Harris on her own to address a group of about 40 supporters, reporters and campaign-staff members.


…Harris spoke in an airplane hangar that seemed to highlight the modest size of the crowd. She said a last-minute location change -- required because a tree fell on the hangar where the event was supposed to be held -- kept crowd numbers down.


Airport officials, however, said no hangar had been damaged by a tree and that the rally was in the hangar that had been originally booked.

Isn't it amazing how far Bush cronyism has fallen? Post 9/11, being all buddy-buddy with el presidente meant you got a free ride on any lapses in your resume and were automatically assumed to be tough on terror. Now, Kat can't even get her supporters to support her!

Perhaps the funniest – some would say saddest, but not me – quote came from the one elected official who isn't backing away from his endorsement of Harris. You would think that Representative Tom Feeney must have deep faith in Kat to stand by her in such tough times, huh?

"I endorsed Congresswoman Harris a year ago," Feeney said. "I made a commitment, and I'm going to live up to that commitment."


Feeney was then asked why he offered such a tepid endorsement.


"I won't disclose publicly what I said to Katherine privately," he said. "But that notwithstanding, she decided to run."

Geez, I think Helen Keller could read between those lines. Well at least Feeney helped Kat's campaign come up with a good bumper sticker slogan: "Harris 06: Notwithstanding Friends' Advice".

Captain Chutzpah and his Cunt-head Crony

You know, I sort of got swept up by the "netroots" campaign against Joe Lieberman, a candidate for whom I had never before had anything but modest respect. Yet the more I read, the more determined I become that he does not retain his Senate seat…and the more outraged I am that our party actually nominated him as our vice presidential candidate.

Drawing strength from a new poll that gave Lieberman a 53-41-4% edge in a three-way race with Democrat Ned Lamont and Republican Alan Schlesinger, the incumbent tried to play on the racism of prospective voters:

The Lieberman campaign is trying to frighten white voters in Connecticut -- and Democrats in Washington -- by reminding them over and over again that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson support Lamont. This week, the senator's aides told the New York Times that playing the two African-American preachers off against Lamont will enhance Lieberman's appeal on an independent ballot line. "Primary night was the first time that many Connecticut voters saw Lamont on TV, and he's surrounding himself with two of the more divisive and problematic figures in the Democratic Party," said Dan Gerstein, the Lieberman campaign's communications director.

It is true that Sharpton and Jackson are notorious publicity whores, have stuck their feet in their respective mouths countless times, and have suddenly made themselves BFF with Lamont. Yet Lieberman's audacity in calling out Lamont reeks of hypocrisy when you look at some of the polarizing figures with whom he's jumped in the sack.

Few prominent national figures have a lower approval rating than Lieberman's crush, The Interloper…except perhaps Louis Farrakhan. That's right, the Senator has gone on record saying positive things about the racist leader of the Nation of Islam – a man whose anti-Semitism makes Jackson and Sharpton look only a bit meshugina.

…while campaigning as Al Gore's running mate, [Lieberman] fulsomely praised Farrakhan on a national radio program. During an interview with April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks on Sept. 26, 2000, Lieberman…[was] asked about Farrakan's caustic response to his nomination on the Democratic ticket, which included questioning his "dual loyalty" to Israel and the United States, Lieberman responded with a meek appeal for mutual understanding.

"Look, Minister Farrakhan has said a few things, including earlier in the campaign, that were just not informed… But, you know, I have respect for him and I have respect for the Muslim community generally." … Moreover, Lieberman added, "I have respect for him ... I admire what Minister Farrakhan is doing."

Maybe I'm naïve, but I think "admiring" someone who called Jews "bloodsuckers" seems a lot worse than cozying up to someone who called New York "Hymie Town". But really, despite Lieberman's recent criticism, are Sharpton and Jackson all that terrible? Let's ask…Joe Lieberman:

Not so long ago, he liked to talk about his warm conversation with Jackson on the day that he became a major party's first Jewish vice presidential nominee, his eyes moist and his voice emotional as he recalled Jackson saying "something that went to my heart" about breaking down barriers for everyone. Not so long ago, he called Sharpton his "dear friend" and "brother" during the Democratic presidential primary debate sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and Fox News.

The self-serving asscunt can't keep his story straight and is willing to sacrifice his party and his religion to advance a flailing political career. Not only does Joe Lieberman represent a lot of what's wrong with the American political system, he represents a lot of what's wrong with humanity. Oy!

It only sounds like Xenophobe…

While no doubt dying to talk about something other than Macaca , this isn't exactly what he had in mind. It seems that Virginia Senator George Felix Allen is now facing rumors about impropriety at a tech company on whose board of directors he formerly sat.

In the late 90s, Allen was intimately involved with Xybernaut, now in bankruptcy and facing several shareholder lawsuits. What happened?

Xybernaut clearly engaged in questionable activities – and did plenty of business with questionable characters – while Allen was a director with a responsibility to protect shareholders' interests. Xybernaut's rise, indeed, was driven by some of the financial industry's seediest bottom-feeders – questionable stock touters, offshore front groups involved in money laundering, and foreign financiers linked to short-selling, securities fraud, and, in 2005, the collapse of a major Wall Street brokerage firm. Driving Xybernaut upward as well were the determined efforts of its officers to promote and sell the company's stock to unwitting small investors, even as the company's fundamentals spiraled ever more out of control.

Allen has not been named in any of the shareholder lawsuits, yet since the man calls the US Senate "the best board of directors in the world", I think it is only fair that we consider his tenure on other boards as well…right cowboy?

Real American Douchebag

Nobody loves jumping on a bandwagon and beating a metaphorical horse to death as much as I do, but really, is there any new ground to cover about Macaca-Gate?

You're damn right there is.

What's first in the queue? How about the brutish and violent side of the Senator, most captivatingly recorded in a 2000 memoir written by Allen's sister, Jennifer Richard:

Richard's book contained some cartoonish, though alarming, accounts of violence at the Allen home. Richard remembers George, her older brother and the future senator, dragging her up the stairs by her hair. She remembers George breaking his brother Gregory's collarbone. She remembers George throwing her brother Bruce through a sliding glass door. At one point in the book, which was marketed as nonfiction, she says George spoke about dentistry as a perfect profession, because he wanted to be paid to "make people suffer."

(Why do I hear Steve Martin singing in my head?)

What else? Well, like any good Republican, the Senator is a hypocrite. At last week's rally, Allen said, "Let's give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia." Apparently he didn't know that Macaca himself (real name S.R. Sidarth) was born and raised in Virginia…and apparently he forgot that he was born and raised in California.

Of course, there's a lot more. Did you know that the Senator wore a Confederate flag pin in his high school senior year photo and posed in front of one in HIS HOUSE for a 1993 campaign ad? How about the fact that he once opposed Martin Luther King Day, or hung a noose on a tree outside his law office? Of course, Allen claimed that he is a changed man…after all, he "recently passed an anti-lynching resolution".

Wow, he's really going out on a limb on that one, huh? Get it, "a limb"? Oh well, at least the Senator is laughing.

And finally, there's this bit of classic GOP posturing that backfired for the faux cowboy:

The Allen campaign said that [Democratic challenger Jim] Webb's position on flag burning exposed him as "liberal"… Those are fighting words in the Commonwealth, and Webb isn't taking them sitting down. Returning fire, Webb's camp said that "George Felix Allen Jr. and his bush-league lapdog, [campaign manager] Dick Wadhams, have not earned the right to challenge Jim Webb's position on free speech and flag burning." They noted that Webb, the secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, served in Vietnam and "fought for our flag and what it stands for," while "George Felix Allen Jr. chose to cut and run."

Allen turned 18 in 1970, but he did not serve in Vietnam , staying in college and spending summers at what the Webb campaign calls a "dude ranch in Nevada."

Geez, calling this guy a douchebag doesn't seem to say enough, does it? Oh well, if the cowboy boot fits…

The man, the myth, the douchebag

In an ironic twist, yesterday George W. Bush proclaimed Israel's victory over Hezbollah at roughly the same time Iran, Syria and Hezbollah itself declared a victorious campaign over Israeli forces and American influence. The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin believes that the Interloper's "startling assertion…once again raises questions about his ability to acknowledge reality when things don't turn out the way he intended."

While his word no longer carries any capital, I sure would like to believe the president. Unfortunately, Dubya's press conference speaks for itself (or at least it does when you read between read between the lines). You remember the rules of this game , right?

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Today I met with members of my national security team, both here at the State Department and at the Pentagon.

I call them my "home" and "away" teams and let Condi choose her own entrance music. I was hoping for something by Metallica or Kiss, but she picked "99 Luftballoons". What it lacks is testicular fortitude, it makes up for in catchiness.

Friday's U.N. Security Council resolution on Lebanon is an important step forward that will help bring an end to the violence…We're now working with our international partners to turn the words of this resolution into action.

Stupid partners. They always want to share stuff and crap.

Responsibility for the suffering of the Lebanese people also lies with Hezbollah's state sponsors, Iran and Syria.

And with terrorism's biggest global fertilizer: my administration.

We can only imagine how much more dangerous this conflict would be if Iran had the nuclear weapon it seeks.

And I can only imagine what it feels like to go a day without a boom boom in my pants.

We've launched a forward strategy of freedom in the broader Middle East . And that strategy has helped bring hope to millions and fostered the birth of young democracies from Baghdad to Beirut.

Yup, lots of hope these days in Baghdad and Beirut.

It's no coincidence that two nations that are building free societies in the heart of the Middle East, Lebanon and Iraq, are also the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity.

I'm telling you, the fact that we invaded Iraq without cause or provocation has nothing to do with it.

The problem in the Middle East today is not that people lack the desire for freedom.

The problem is that the freedom most Middle Easterners crave is the freedom to burn American flags and them little rag dolls that sorta look like me. I told Rummy – "you gotta stop them A-rabs and their Mexican voodoo" but he was all like, "Just sign this, sir," and I was like "Dick, what time does Aqua Teen Hunger Force come on TV?" and he was like "after your bedtime Mr. President" and I said to Laura, "Hey sexy momma - get me a set of pajamas with the little footies attached, cause otherwise, the terrorists have won."

Any time we get a hint that there might be a terrorist cell in the United States , we move on it. And we're listening, we're looking, and one thing that's important is for us to make sure that those people who are trying to disrupt terrorist cells in the United States have the tools necessary to do so within the Constitution of the United States.

Or outside the Constitution, or around the Constitution, or without any regard whatsoever to the Constitution. The tools are the most important thing. And lemonade. You can't catch a terrorist if you're parched, and my anti-terror task forces are the thirst-quenchiest in the world. Does anybody want some lemonade? I'm sure I can get a batch whipped up for everybody…

I know you are but what am I?

So it turns out that not only am I not a bad Jew for opposing Joe Lieberman, but through sheer hubris and hypocrisy, he may have violated more Talmudic law than I did when I married a shiksa.

Orthodox Jew Stephen Hirsch examines "Reb Yosef" and his famous Senate floor rebuke of Bill Clinton's adultery. The Reader's Digest version? Captain Chutzpah is a self-serving and superiority-complexed boob. That's right – a boob.

If you're keeping score at home, that means I'm an anti-anti-Semite, which, if I've learned anything from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and Bogus Journey, means I'm very much pro-Semite.

That, and Wyld Stallions rule.

Douchebags in office? Check; Psychopaths with guns? Check.

Loyal PatRoW readers know I'm fond of hyperbole (really, it's amazing I'm not a Republican), so you can imagine my glee when I read this quote from Israeli politician Yossi Sarid: "The United States under Bush single-handedly destroyed its deterrent power and that of the free world, including Israel."

Damn, that's some Grade-A exaggeration! Except for one thing…he's 100% right. Sarid continued by saying that "if the American demon that has taken over Iraq is not so terrible and can be worn down, then just how terrible could the Israeli demon possibly be?"

I've gone on record as calling Israel's war with Lebanon a clusterfuck, but my best buds in Salon's War Room have done some legwork and provided the following facts. Feel free to decide for yourself where the truth lies ("Where the Truth Lies" ©2004 George W. Bush):

1. Many Israelis [are] openly acknowledging that the Israel-Lebanon war has been a disaster for Israel

2. Waging unnecessary wars, particularly when they are waged poorly, makes a nation much weaker, not stronger (see, e.g., Iraq)

3. Contrary to the reprehensible accusations in this country that opposition to, or criticism of, the Israel-Lebanon war is evidence of anti-Israel bias or even anti-Semitism, many people are opposed to the war -- and critical of President Bush's foolishly unrestrained support for it -- precisely because it is so harmful to Israel

4. Israel's democracy is sufficiently healthy that journalists and other citizens not only can criticize the country's leader in the middle of a war but can call for his resignation -- without being branded a traitor, a subversive, a coward and all of the other slurs to which Bush critics in the U.S. are routinely subjected.

By creating a terrorist state where terrorists formerly had no standing, the US has not only forced a civil war upon Iraq, but has bolstered the resolve of our enemies around the world who now believe that the "World's Only Superpower" has no real teeth. And Israel – our only real ally in the Middle East – now faces a similarly-reinforced, reenergized and rejuvenated opposition. Without fear of legitimate American-led repercussions, what will stop political, economical and sociological attacks on the US and our allies around the world?

Oh wait, I know: psychic security guards. I feel safer already.

GOP Politics as Usual

Well, it didn't take long for The Interloper and his cronies to politicize the averted terrorist attacks on flights out of the UK. The Brits stopped the terrorists…that means we were right to piss on the Constitution and completely destroy the global goodwill we had post 9/11. Hooray!

Salon provides a potpourri of ridiculous GOP propaganda and right wing blog hyperbole that supports their favorite shadow administration. Some may even say that the Republicunts have a right to gloat after averting a major crisis. Yeah, uh, not exactly.

Bush followers who exploit terrorist threats for political gain and to gin up support for the president's policies are not pursuing rational arguments. They leap at the chance to manipulate terrorist stories because they want to ratchet up the fear levels, precisely because fear obviates rational analysis and increases the willingness of citizens to cede more power and control to the government, to place more blind faith in political officials in exchange for a feeling of protection.

James Madison, in a 1798 letter to Thomas Jefferson, warned about this manipulative tactic: "Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." And Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 8, observed: "Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates."

That's right – Federalist Paper #8. I don't mean to get all Civics 101 on you, but I quoted it. What up, bitch?

For the Record

I am Jewish and (if I were registered to vote in Connecticut, would have) voted against Joe Lieberman. Can we stop this anti- Semitic shit already?

Sometimes, even us Jews can be douchebags…isn't that enough?

What about four out of five Democrats across the country declaring happiness with Lieberman's defeat? Did you notice that nearly every prominent Democrat has already vocally supported Lamont and/or urged Lieberman to kill his Independent candidacy? What do these facts mean?

Oh yeah, I forgot – we all hate the Jews. Yeah, that makes sense…

Joe Must Go

Joe's out; Ned's in. Can you believe I actually waited two days to post something about this? I mean, I have mentioned the Lieberman-Lamont primary from time to time to time.

In a travashamockery of a concession speech, Lieberman positioned himself as a self-serving jackass poised to hinder any longshot Democrats have of recapturing the Senate this November. He vowed to run as an independent, which will have a few major ramifications: 1) he could draw enough votes from middle-of-the-road voters to defeat both the Democrat or Republican challengers; 2) he could siphon off enough Democratic votes that the Republican wins; or 3) he WILL force the DNC to devote resources to one of the bluest of states in order to ensure a Lamont victory and the destruction of scenarios 1 and 2. Put it in perspective, will you War Room?

Lieberman has turned himself into the most vivid symbol of the insular, arrogant, corrupt and power-desperate Washington establishment, the sheer cravenness and corruption of which are what catalyzed the campaign against him in the first place.

Those who compose that entrenched Beltway power establishment -- the endlessly reelected political officials, the hordes of consultants and lobbyists who feed off and control them, and the pampered, self-loving "journalists" who enable it all -- are characterized by a single-minded quest to perpetuate their own power, flavored by a thinly masked contempt for the masses on whose behalf this system ostensibly plods along. Lieberman's conduct last night was a perfect textbook for all of those afflictions.

Well done, douchebag. Great Democrat you turned out to be. And the fact that he is so quick to declare a political disaster is particularly telling, as Joan Walsh writes " The notion that Lamont supporters are somehow "destroying the center" or killing bipartisanism is fiction; George W. Bush did that." And now Lieberman has to deal with the consequences of getting in bed with the devil and sucking him off.

Hey Joe-mo – you still have a little Dubya seed in your hair. Disappear already, will ya?

The Clusterfuck Conundrum

Hezbollah sends a rocket into Israel, and because Hezbollah isn't its own country, Israel retaliates by attacking Lebanon. Just as the US battled Al Qaeda by attacking radicals in Afghanistan, so must Israel strike back against Iranian influence with its raids on Lebanon. It is a cycle of events that has and will continue to repeat itself – and one that leaves many asking this question:

What can Israel do? The conventional wisdom holds that any military action is counterproductive. The doves point out that the Israeli counteroffensive has boosted Hezbollah's standing in the Arab world.

Well, sure. But Hezbollah's prestige was also boosted by Israel's 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon . If aggressive Israeli actions boost Hezbollah, and conciliatory Israeli actions boost Hezbollah, then maybe Israel's actions aren't really the prime mover here.

The most sensical thing The Interloper has taught me is that the War on Terror is not one against any nation, but an ideology of hate. This is nothing new. Smarter men than me (yes, some do exist) have come up empty with a Mideast peace solution – a shortcoming likely do to the fact that logic can't win in a region dominated by hate and misinformation. I'm not necessarily pessimistic by nature (except my opinion that most people are idiots who will make bad decisions if given the chance), but how can this not end badly?

Perhaps a rosier outcome could be had if American forces weren't spread thin in Iraq (and elsewhere)…but I doubt it. Things are bad and they're going to get worse. A once optimistic and western-influenced Lebanon is on the verge of complete annihilation, and hate seems poised to carry the day for generations to come.

Nazi in the front; party in the back

I don't know if they're taking nominations for the Bad Haircut Hall of Fame, but this guy is a sure-fire first ballot inductee. This is why skinheads shouldn't grow out their mullets.

Quick Hits: Lord I was born a rambling man

After yesterday's grotesque 915-word masturbatory effort, I realize the need to cut back on my verbiage. Folks, days like today were made for Quick Hits.

Cop snares college pals in own Web – The news isn't that the cops used facebook.com to find a public urinator and his justice-obstructing friend, it's that the Chicago Tribune would print somebody saying, "I got bone crushed." I sure do love hard-hitting journalism.

Deuce Bigalow vs. Mel Gibson – In a move guaranteed to shatter the plans of Hollywood's top producers, Rob Schneider took out a full-page ad in Thursday's Variety to pledge he would never work with the "only anti-Semitic when I'm drunk" two-time Oscar winning Mel Gibson:

"Even if Mr. Gibson offered me the lead role in Passion of the Christ 2, I, like Bernie Brillstein, would have to say 'NO!'," the Schneider letter declares.

Brillstein is the longtime Hollywood manager who told the Los Angeles Times that, if asked, he would not represent Gibson. "I don't like bigots," Brillstein said.

Crap. Now who will play the bad guy in 2007's Deuce Bigalow: Space Gigolo?

Breast-feeding reduces anxiety into childhood – I couldn't care less about childhood anxiety, but did Yahoo really have to look to France to get a photo of a woman breast feeding? What – no American babies were hungry yesterday?

Chicken or the Egg?

Colin McEnroe writes an interesting piece that touches on a few issues about which I have a deep interest, namely living wills, separation of church and state, political hypocrisy, and, of course, the Joe Lieberman-Ned Lamont Senate race. Here's a telling passage:

In 1979 … the Connecticut state Senate took up, as it did every year, a bill that would have allowed people to create living wills so that their families would know their wishes as they lay dying.

The lobbying arm of the Catholic Church fought and beat the bill every year. During the long-winded 1979 debate, as Joe Lieberman sat listening to a Catholic colleague denounce the bill as "man playing God," a 25-year-old newspaper reporter plopped down in a chair next to him.

"Why does it always break down that way?" the reporter whispered. "The more conservative argument always invokes God. The liberals always insist that God has no place in a debate in an American state legislature …Why doesn't somebody make the argument that medical science has exceeded the will of God by keeping people alive when they're supposed to be dead? Why not suggest that living wills represent a kind of restoration, allowing people to live in communion with the will of their Maker?"

At that, Lieberman fixed the reporter with a serious look and said, "That's the most interesting thing anybody has said to me all session."

The reporter brightened at such praise, only to watch in disappointment as Lieberman voted against the bill, which failed again.

I was that young reporter. Call it the beginning of my education about Joe Lieberman. Sometimes what he says has nothing to do with how he'll vote.

I don't know how many PatRoW readers actually care about the Connecticut race, especially since the Nutmeg State is unlikely to elect a Republican or Independent (Lieberman?) candidate. Also, Stat Counter tells me that I have 6 times as many readers in Norway as I do in Connecticut (maybe I should do some Scandinavian homework and come up with a witty quip about King Harald V or call Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg a douchebag. Special thanks to the CIA for the intel).

But here's the thing (and please read McEnroe's piece to get the full picture), why do politicians – not just Lieberman, mind you – feel the need to say one thing and do another? Why is it considered par for the political course to compromise one's ideals or sacrifice the consensus of the electorate when it is convenient to do so?

Joe Lieberman actively and loudly supported Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court nomination, then voted against it when it became clear his vote would not matter; he " collaborated with Sen. Jesse Helms on a measure that would have stripped federal funding from public schools that counseled suicidal gay teens that their lifestyle was OK"; he has played footsie with Pat Robertson and Sean Hannity, and famously had a public love affair with our dimwitted president.

In an article criticizing liberals who attack Lieberman for not, as FDR would have endorsed, "putting first things first" and focusing efforts on vulnerable Republican seats before cannibalizing ineffective Democrats, Jonathan Alter nonetheless has this to say:

…The fury directed at [Lieberman] by many Democrats is rooted… in his annoying habit of hedging his bets, as reflected in his risk-averse insistence that if he loses the primary, he'll run as an independent. His campaign poster when he ran for high-school class president featured him crouched on his parents' roof under the line: VOTE OR I'LL JUMP. The charm of that has worn off.

I agree; Lieberman's steadfast support for Dubya's Folly (©2006 Patience and the Reign of Witches) may be the issue that actually gets him run out of office, but it only the latest in a series of capitulations he has made to both the war-mongering and Christian conservative wings of the Republican Party. And yet, by nearly any measuring stick, he has had an incredibly successful political career (as a Democrat, no less) and fairly won an election that should have awarded him the second-highest American political office. And yet, what is it about politics that brings out the best in idealists and moralists alike, yet rewards politicians who sell us all down the river?

A colleague of mine, when asked that very question, thought I missed the point:

The thing that's missing is money. MONEY. I don't know where Joe's money comes from, but if you're going to bring up the chicken and the egg and rewarding liars and deceivers, I put it squarely on money buying election victories, lazy media enabling the corruption by allowing it to continue (and focus on the "horserace" instead of issues which could bring the hypocrisy to light) and ending (beginning?) with the hypocritical votes that are required to earn the money.

Maybe that's part of the truth, although I presume that the full answer is closely related to the fact that as splintered as our country's political landscape may be, the one thing that unites all of us – blue and red staters, evangelical and atheist, hawk and dove, Mayflower material or first-generation – is the near universal distrust and growing distain for the officials that are supposed to represent our interests in public office. I suppose a better question is whether the loathsome nature of the political landscape corrupts our best and brightest elected officials, or whether our loathsome politicians are responsible for the decay in the fabric of American Democracy.