TBogg:

I know that we’re all supposed to join hands and pull together for a greater more progressive tomorrow and yadda yadda yadda…. but when it comes to Hillary Clinton, fuck that noise. My contempt for her has reached the Lieberman line.

There is one thing that I truly believe in and that is fairness. You may not like the rules, but once you agree to them, you play by them. Hillary Clinton can’t even manage to do someting as simple as that.

The Lieberman Line — Classic.

Clintonista counterpoint:

Delegates should be thinking about one thing and one thing only and it’s not the rules.

Oh yes she did:

Clinton compares the Florida and Michigan fight to civil rights movement.

Hillary Clinton compared her effort to seat Florida and Michigan delegates to epic American struggles, including those to free the slaves and win the right to vote for blacks and women.

“This work to extend the franchise to all of our citizens is a core mission of the modern Democratic party,” she said. “From signing the Voting Rights Act and fighting racial discrimination at the ballot box to lowering the voting age so those old enough to fight and die in war would have the right to choose their commander in chief, to fighting for multi-lingual ballots so you can make your voice heard no matter what language you speak.”

Just appalling. There ought to a law similar to Godwin’s law when self-interested egomaniacs invoke the civil rights movement to further their own obsessive quests for power.

Call it “Sharpton’s Law,” or something.

But “Janus-faced” and “hypocritical” don’t begin to describe this person.

No ties to 9/11, no WMDs and no ties to al Qaeda? Don’t ask Joe Lieberman:

The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.

Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

The Democratic Party rejected Bush’s framework for the war on terror — invade a country which had no ties to al Qaeda, no means to harm our nation, and no connection to the attacks of 9/11 — because it was a stupid, counterproductive, and disastrous framework. As a recent Pentagon study stated:

“Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle.”

Why, in the hell should Democrats embrace, as Lieberman urges, a “major debacle?” For the sake of “centrism” and presenting a united front — of stupidity — to our enemies?

Which enemies, by the way, are being increased by the decisions made within Bush’s disastrous framework for the war on terror. The National Intelligence Estimate released in September, 2006 undercut the argument that invading Iraq has made us safer — an argument Lieberman either stupidly or dishonestly continues to implicitly make. Rather, Iraq has made it easier for al Qaeda — the real threat — to recruit and rebuild its networks:

• The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

Measured in terms of significant terrorist attacks world wide, Bush’s framework for the war on terror has resulted in a geometric expansion in the number of attacks world wide: from 208 such attacks in 2002, to well over 14,000 such attacks in 2006. To paraphrase my late mother, “If Bush jumped off a cliff, you would jump too?”

Perpetuating Bush’s mistakes, and endorsing his catastrophic “framework for the war on terror” only continues to strengthen our enemies, continues to squander our financial resources, and more importantly, continues to erode our military and drain its strength. Losing tens of thousands of killed and maimed in a “major debacle” which enables al Qaeda to cultivate more jihadists, and launch thousands of more attacks is no way to make America safer.

AP: “Boy band creator sentenced to 25 years in prison”

Goody! I hope they will become illegal now!

Mike Piazza retired yesterday, ending his baseball career after 16 years and 427 home runs.

Piazza’s retirement seems a bit forced. That is, he wasn’t signed to play for anyone this year and I get the feeling had someone wanted him he’d still be playing. Five or so years from now, they’ll send his jersey to Cooperstown as the all-time home run king for catchers (396 of his round-trippers came in games he caught.)

~~~

I’ve never been a Dodgers fan. In fact, my wife’s love of the Blue is maybe the most contentious element in our relationship — I can’t stand sitting and watching the Dodgers every night (but we do); I’d much prefer watching the Angels or the NBA playoffs or Law and Order.

But I’m a Piazza fan.

I covered the Dodgers for one of the wire services during the 90s.

It was very much a love/hate gig.

I loved covering major league baseball, loved the press box and the access and the trappings of being a sportswriter. But the Dodgers were terrible mostly during those days (which was sort of fun for me) and going into their clubhouse night after night for quotes was a supreme drag. Tommy Lasorda, in particular, never failed to act like a total prick to me, a true asshole in the worst sense of the word (my only regret was that I never filed a word-for-word recap of one of his foul-mouthed tirades to the L.A. Weekly. My editor there thought it would be funny, but we were both afraid I’d be banned from the stadium immediately afterwards and I needed to not get fired from the wire service job. I was chickenshit and regret it.)

Anyways …

The Dodgers sucked, but Mike Piazza didn’t. He was one of the few bright spots of the era (along with Hideo Nomo’s rookie year, few no-hitters and a perfect game by Dennis Martinez), pounding home runs to right center field and showing grit and determination behind the plate, even though he wasn’t the greatest catcher around.

More than that, Piazza was a good guy, always friendly, honest and available after games. I have a memory of him coming out of the shower area in the clubhouse, a towel around his waist, ice taped to bruises all over his body (being a major league catcher is blue collar work) — probably wanting to do anything but talk about another Dodger loss — answering questions and chatting with reporters.

I had a job to do and Mike Piazza helped me a lot in those days. For both his skill on the field and his class off it, I’ll always be a fan of Mike Piazza.

from the Los Angeles Times

McCain was all fire and brimstone today in Florida pandering to the Cuban community about how he hates Castro’s communist government, has always hated it, hates it forever, and criticizing Barack Obama for suggesting thereby some normalization of relations as a means of promoting democracy:

Vowing, “as president, I will not passively await the day when the Cuban people enjoy the blessings of freedom and democracy,” McCain said he would keep the U.S. embargo in place until the regime’s leaders agreed “to release all political prisoners unconditionally, to legalize all political parties, labor unions and free media, and to schedule internationally monitored elections. … Make no mistake Cuba is destined to be free. Cuba is destined to be free.”

The presumptive GOP nominee also sought to differentiate his Cuba policy as much as possible from Obama’s, quoting an answer Obama gave in a questionnaire a few years ago when he backed lifting the embargo. At the time, Obama wrote, “I believe that normalization of relations with Cuba would help the oppressed and poverty-stricken Cuban people while setting the stage for a more democratic government once Castro inevitably leaves the scene.” Noting wryly that his opponent’s approach represented “an interesting perspective on Cuba,” McCain drew chuckles from the crowd.

A few years ago, you say?

During a 2000 CNN interview in which he discussed the Elian Gonzales issue at length, McCain asserted that his support for Gonzales retaining residency in the U.S. was due to his belief in freedom and democracy, and not an extension on anti-Castro sentiment. “First of all, I’m not in favor of sticking my finger in the eye of Fidel Castro,” McCain said, “In fact, I would favor a road map towards normalization of relations such as we presented to the Vietnamese and led to a normalization of relations between our two countries.”

Meanwhile McOops tries to clarify his position:

McCain told reporters aboard his campaign bus today that his philosophy towards Cuba remains unchanged. “I have always supported the position that before any normalization of relations can take place, free elections, emptying political prison and human rights organizations functioning had to take place,” he said. “That has been my position for 24 years and remains my position.”

I guess I missed all the free elections, emptying of political prisons and human rights stuff which preceded normalization of relations with Vietnam. Or else McOops is not talking straight.

Or maybe it just depends on which way the political wind is blowing.

And as an aside, why does McCain think that continuation of the policies of the last 49 years which have failed to change the regime in Cuba will suddenly usher in democratization?

I’ve been largely steering clear of the blogwar between Clintonistas and Obamaites, but this post cries for quick comment. Lambert, in a post ironically titled Stupid Roe argument opines:

I keep hearing the OFB (”Obama Fan Base,” a derogation for those who support Obama) talking point that a key reason to vote for Obama in the general is to safeguard Roe. [ed: through Supreme Court appointments.]

If McCain won — if Satan himself won — Democrats would still have control of the SJC. If Dems really want to safeguard Roe, then make Roe a litmus test for the nominees. Then bork whoever gets sent up ’til McCain — or Satan — gets it and does the right thing.

Of course, that would require the Senate Dems to acquire stones, but that would be bad why?

There are plenty of other reasons to vote for the Democrat in the general, but this is not one.

This is incredibly shortsighted. First of all, if McCain wins the general election, he will be in office for 4, or perhaps 8, years. One-third of the Senate is up for reelection every 2 years. Thus it is within the realm of theoretical possibility that the entire Senate could turn over within McCain’s presidency. While this is extremely unlikely, it is not possible to discount the possibility that within that time frame the Democrats may not control the SJC (Senate Judicial Committee) or the Senate, and may not have veto power over a Supreme Court nominee.

Right now, the Democrats have a narrow majority in the Senate, and though that may be substantially enlarged in the general election, we won’t really know exactly what the numbers will be until after the voting is down. If the supposition is wrong, then it is too late to ask for a do-over and decide that voting for a pro-choice presidential candidate does matter, just as it would be too late if the GOP somehow wrested control of the Senate back during McCain’s presidency.

It goes without saying that relying on the Senate to “bork” any candidate who refuses to pleadge to reaffirm Roe v. Wade is equally myopic. The fact that the Senate has been 100% unsuccessful in controlling judicial appointments in the past ought to be a hint that it may be impossible for it to do so in the future.

Realistically, a more likely scenario if McCain is in office is an appointee who refuses to directly state how he would vote on abortion, who plays lip service to the value of precedent in general and Roe in particular. In other words, you get another Roberts.

There have been only 2 Supreme Court appointments by Democratic Presidents in the last 40 years. Apart from the issue of abortion and the continuing viability of Roe v. Wade, there are many other important issues impacted by the current rightward twist of the Court - like voting rights, for instance.

I’ve met Lambert a few times, and have found him intelligent and earnest. But pretending that the power to make Supreme Court appointments doesn’t matter, when Justice Stevens is 88, Ginsberg is 75 and Breyer is 70 is willful blindness. Villify Obama (and his “fan base”) all you want, but you have to be smarter than this. The consequences of an aging Supreme Court and another 4-8 years of GOP judicial appointments would have a substantial and lasting impact on this country.

According to the White House:

The White House on Tuesday dismissed an Israeli media report that President Bush intends to attack Iran before his term ends in January.

“An article in today’s Jerusalem Post about the president’s position on Iran that quotes unnamed sources — quoting unnamed sources — is not worth the paper it’s written on,” the White House said in a statement hours after the Israeli newspaper published the report on its Web site.

The Jerusalem Post article cited an Israeli Army Radio report that quoted a “senior official in Jerusalem” saying a “senior member of the president’s entourage” claimed Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney thought military action was called for against Tehran.

But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were opposed, the official told Army Radio, according to the newspaper.

The message from Press Secretary Dana Perino is here.

Sadly, No! sums up Dan Riehl nicely with this:

Really, you just gotta read that post and stare in awe at the remarkable amount of delusion he displays. When Republicans are winning elections, that’s proof that all Americans are hard-core right-wingers. And when Republicans get their asses kicked? Well, that’s just further proof that Americans are hard-core right-wingers!

But I just wonder what’s up with randomly hyphenating words, like T. Herman Zweibel?

While the GOP is imploding, the neo-liberals (who are really anything but liberal) that comprise the Left, better be careful about over-estimating their draw.

Americans reject the Left more than they do the far-Right. Recent election results may spell trouble for a currently misguided GOP. But they still speak volumes in support of a traditional America.

And that is much more akin to genuine conservative-thinking than that of the new libs we see in the blogosphere. Unfortunately, we haven’t seen much genuine conservatism from the GOP in a while either. And there-in lies their problem.

Has Dan gone ga-ga staring at the cathode-ray tube?