Lieberman, The Nut

As I just explained, one of the heroes of my 20s, Senator Joe Lieberman, has turned into a real monster. This was apparent soon after the 2006 Midterms and, according to my social-psychological calculations, was the major trigger for is now 3 year long psychotic episode. There have been many effects, his endorsement of McCain and speaking at the RNC Convention are major league sins, but his recent behavior about health-care-reform is just unspeakable.

Repercussions of His Monstrosity

He's no longer my senator nor quasi-congregant, so why should I care? Well, besides my early ardent support (just see my blog posts from 2003-2006), he is probably the most prominent Orthodox Jew in the world. And because his behavior is terrible, it is a chillul Hashem. In a year following Madoff (and the Jewish *sounding* Goldman Sachs, a point for another time), we Hebrews are taking a major hit. Prominent pro-Israel schmucks like Lieberman contribute to the mainstreaming of anti-Zionism, as well.

An Example

Many decent, moderate-leftists have been pillorying Lieberman over the past few days - and with good cause - because he has just killed the public option for health-care-reform. Mark Kleiman, of the Reality Based Community, states:

In 2000, when Al Gore selected Joe Lieberman as his running-mate, Jesse Jackson decided to throw a tantrum about it, portraying Lieberman as some sort of crypto-reactionary creep. My reaction at the time was that Jackson was acting like a jerk and helping hand the election to the Republicans.

Of course I had no idea how close the election would be; as things turned out, Jackson’s move was probably the difference between having George W. Bush as President and not having him as President, which means the difference between war with Iraq and no war with Iraq. So Jackson was, indeed, acting like a jerk.

But, as Joe Lieberman has amply demonstrated, Jackson wasn’t wrong.

Now, while I will write Kleiman and suggest to him that in 2000 Joe wasn't so bad, I feel torn about lending any credibility to Lieberman and his rishus. But the crucial point of Kleiman's post isn't the original author, but from one of his commenters Ed Whitney" who says :

"[Lieberman's] goody-goody sanctimony combined with regressive politics was captured by Calvin Trillin in The Nation in 2000. He wrote his contribution to the tune of "O Tannenbaum" that went in part:

Joe Lieberman, Joe Lieberman,
A Democrat who’s newish,
Joe Lieberman, Joe Lieberman,
We’re awfully glad you’re Jewish.
Though welfare kids may live on gruel,
At least you’ll always go to shul,
Joe Lieberman, Joe Lieberman,
Your Shabbas rides are fewish."

OK, got that? Some random blogger, in reminiscing about how bad Lieberman is, needs to quote treife-celebrating, Xmas-ogling, self-hating Jew Trillin to write an anti-Semitic jingle against Lieberman (in 2000!) set to a Xmas carol.

That's how chillul-Hashems work, my friend. And especially how Trillin - the terminal sinner - comes off as a better person than Lieberman, the Orthodox Jew. And I can't really argue that point now: Lieberman's actions are indefensible.

Defending Myself

His fall has been swift, in my mind and the shame I feel is mitigated by my feeling/knowledge that he wasn't always like this. I made a similar point when I had my final break with John Mamzer Edwards:

many people are correct only by chance. For example, the smartasses who said that John Edwards was *of course* cheating on his wife... basing their assertions on the sole facts that (a) Edwards was good-looking, and (b) they disagreed with Edwards' policies/profession/accent.

Not liking somebody, and thus attributing to the disliked person all sorts of crimes, does not make your criticisms prophetic. You just got lucky.

However, if you said that Edwards was a wife-cheater because of certain provable factors (e.g. you knew of some shady behaviors, you read in his book that 'cheating on your cancer-stricken wife ain't the worst thing a person can do', or if you personally slept with him), then - fine - you can be considered a perceptive prognosticator.

For the record, I didn't believe the rumors that Edwards was cheating on his wife because I didn't think that someone as successful as him (self-made multi-millionaire, young Democratic senator in a red-state) would do something so destructive and stupid. I mean, it was Spitzer-esque! And even then, I had some glimmering that Spitzer was a sexual-schkutz because he intermarried. Ya see, that's a provable indicator. Sex crime here leads to sex crime there. But Edwards? Why would someone running for president - someone who constantly references his wife's terminal cancer - have an affair on the campaign trail.

I feel the same way about Lieberman, and not just because I have counter-proof: what Lieberman is doing now is new and while his sanctimoniousness is a constant, and makes his wickedness especially galling (a holier-than-thou villain is hard to take), it is not his current crime. So those who say they were right for hating him in 2000 are deluded: his sanctimoniousness wasn't a crime then, nor now. His moderate-contrarianism wasn't a crime then, nor now. He's not being just 'contrary' now, he's being a Republican, and it's because his only friends now are Republicans (McCain, Graham - who, it should be said, are being shoved off by their own party).

So, Smarty Pants, What Happened?

When I lived in New Haven, I was told these main reasons for why Lieberman changed/was changing:

1. In general, Joe is not the brightest bulb in the electric menorah. No, he's definitely not stupid - he's not in the Bush league (har). It was tough for a Jew to go to Yale in 1964; to quote the Wiki:

   "He received a dual Bachelor of Arts in political science and economics from Yale University in 1964 and was the first member of his family to graduate from college. At Yale he was editor of the Yale Daily News and a member of the Elihu Club. He later attended Yale Law School, receiving his law degree in 1967. "

   But he's not in the league of Bill Clinton or even Al Gore.


2. He's not a Natural Politician = This needs to be added to the intelligence problem: he's not really an ambitious suck-up, like Bill Clinton, or a political legacy, like Al Gore or Chris Dodd. From what I heard, he became a politician because of a collection of friends, hangers-on, and especially because of his Mother. And that leads us to the most crucial reason for his fall from grace.
   
   
3. He lost his Political Soul in 2001 and again in 2005: For these facts, you needed to be on the Connecticut inside, but basically Joe lost two people over that time, his political head and his political heart: Jimmy O'Connell in 2001 and his mother in 2005. I will let this Chicago Tribune story from 2006 give the details:

   But the chapter that started in November 2000 would not end, not only because of the presidential campaign, but because of personal tragedy.
   
   Since Lieberman first ran for the State Senate in 1970, Jimmy O'Connell was Lieberman's eyes and ears on the Connecticut ground, one of those political pros who seemed to know every Democrat in every town-and someone who could tell the boss where he may have to make a phone call or a diner visit to calm an angry town chairman.
   
   In December, 2001, O'Connell, 53, was found slumped in his car off an exit ramp off I-91 in Windsor, the victim of an apparent heart attack.
   
   Three and a half years later, Lieberman's mother Marcia died. Lieberman for years has taken comfort and advice from four strong women: Brown; his wife Hadassah; Washington chief of staff Clarine Nardi Riddle; and his mother.
   
   Joe and Marcia Lieberman were not only close, they were political soulmates. Marcia Lieberman had traveled the country with her son in his national campaigns, vigorously defending him before voters and reporters-and one of the few people able to tell the senator when things didn't seem right.
   
   After her death in March, 2005, Lieberman seemed different to his extended family, less inclined to dive into intraparty politics. Ornstein, for one, said he regular lunches with the senator stopped.

   All of that corroborates what I heard in New Haven, and it should be said, that the Tribune story was in August 2006 - before it became totally clear that Lieberman was cracking up.

To review: Lieberman, not super-intelligent and a bad-fit politician, had his career created and sustained by two people - O'Connell and Joe's mom - who both died between 2001 and 2005. What I heard was that O'Connell was Joe's political brain and Joe's mom was his heart.

Is it any surprise, then, that Lieberman seems to be a stunningly stupid politician - as his August 2006 primary performance showed - and also a person who has lost his neshama - as his Republicanism of 2008-2009 shows.

Makeh B'Patish: The Final Hammerblow

The primary loss of 2006 has been, correctly, credited as the moment when Lieberman The Good became Bizarro Lieberman. For any outside observer, it's when he felt that his true friends were not Democrats - who abandoned him - but his Senate pals McCain and Graham. But with the above data, you can see why 25+ year political veteran (10 years in State Senate, 6 years as state AG, 3 terms as CT Senator) felt betrayed by a political - not personal - setback. Because he's not a natural pol; he actually felt he had "friends" in politics; and since his political & moral compasses had, by that year, both died, he made decisions not as a politician but as an aggrieved, friendless, persecuted old weirdo.

So I do not regret supporting him in 2006 - before it became known how nuts he was; and possibly, had the idiot leftoids of the Nader Democrats not tried to kill him in '06, he'd be a friendlier ally right now (to paraphrase the ultra-fictional Omar: "if you come at the king, you best not miss.")

But since his opposition to Obama in '08, I've grown apart from him, and now I must repudiate him as a politician. It's not personal, Joe. But you're a chillul Hashem and you seriously need to do teshuva.

Pics have been used before by me, except the Palpatine one, which I've thought for years, and the Wonder Twins from here.

Updated Labels: Shunned, Nut

Back at the beginning of the year, I worked on the epistemological task of updating my blog-labels. One change was to add titles to politicians, e.g. instead of plain old Bill Clinton, he became Citizen Bill Clinton. I explained the change thusly:

Herr is a title for evil politicians (and the appropriate gender specifics, e.g. Herr Cheney, Frau Coulter);

Citizen for good guys (for the most part; I'm being generous by including Krugman here);

Comrade for bad leftists (e.g. Ralph Nader).

Since that time, early January, I've added a few more categories:

1. "The Nut" = This applies to people I used to align with but who have since either gone completely crazy or whose previously existing crazy has shown to be no longer useful. This applies to my bygone favorite politician Joseph Lieberman who has transformed himself into a monster, and Martin Peretz (editor of The New Republic) who has always been crazy but while it was useful during the Bush Years and the two Israeli Wars of 2006-2008, his anti-anti-Zionism has gotten too shrill and unhinged to be useful.
   
   
2. "The Shunned" = This applies to people/politicians who's early promise was destroyed by subsequent immorality and/or incompetence. This applies to John Edwards and Ehud Olmert. Edwards had such promise but it turned out that his tacky lack of judgement was deeper than I could have imagined. And Olmert, oy, whose talent as a consummate political strategist and in-fighter was unbalanced by his utter inability to lead a nation, resulting in thousands of innocent deaths.
   
   
3. Miscellaneous additional titles = Extremely crazy or evil right-wingers get added fascist titles, e.g. "Mayorissimo Herr Rudolf Giuliani" or adding a "von" to the middle of the name "Herr Ronald von Reagan"
   
   
4. Borderline cases = Despite my grand disappointment with Paul Krugman, I've given him a "Citizen" title; Hillary Clinton, once she joined the Obama admininstration earned her a "Citizen" title as well. But these can be lost.

For the special cases of Hillary and Lieberman, I will explain more of my thinking anon.

Chelsea Clinton Is Engaged (to a Tribesman)

The NYTimes is announcing that "Chelsea Clinton Is Engagedto her longtime boyfriend, Marc Mezvinsky..." The story goes on to say:

Mr. Mezvinsky, 31, works at Goldman Sachs and is the son of two former Democratic members of Congress, Edward Mezvinsky of Iowa, who served from 1973 to 1977 but was later convicted of defrauding investors and sentenced to seven years in prison, and Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky of Pennsylvania, who served from 1993 to 1995 and lost re-election after voting for President Clinton’s budget program.

A quick wikkiing, shows that shver Ed is Jewish (and I assume Margolies is, duh).

So, will Chelsea pull an Ivanka? Maybe if Hillary were still a NY Senator, she would.

But along with Gore's daughter, and Howard Dean, this is an interesting 'high-placed Democrats marrying Jews' thing. That and Gore's elected VP, makes a nice pattern of the party and Jews. True, Bush was grrrrreat for Israel, but there's more to listen to than assertions of ignorant Fox-News-Frummies.

Pic from the Times.

Post Election Thoughts, part 6

1. Did Palin Know About Africa, NAFTA?
   
   
2. Martin Peretz has a good post: Political Consequences Of An Obama Victory
   
   
3. Reiterating my point about the Obama Presidency's ease: most of the current problems have been CAUSED, they didn't just "happen." True, it's easier to bomb a building than to build one, and Bush has bombed the hell out of the world (literal ones in Iraq, figurative ones on Wall Street), so Obama's toil will be in rebuilding. But here's the simple, all-points plan for the major problems: (1) Iraq, (2) Justice, (3) Healthcare, (4) Economy = once we end Iraq, and enact Healthcare, huge drains on the economy will cease.
   
   
4. Another example of Krauthammer the Ass, from Sullivan.

Backpost finished 2009-12-07.

More Thoughts, part 5

1. Reid & Lieberman- "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will likely meet later this week with Joe Lieberman to discuss whether the Democrat-turned-Independent will be stripped of his Senate committee chairmanship, a senior Democratic leadership aide tells CNN."
   
   
2. TPM links to this story about Sy Hersh: "Rachel Cooke meets the most-feared investigative reporter in Washington"
   
   
3. TPM: Threats To Obama Rose As Palin's Crowds Grew More Frenzied - does this surprise anybody?
   
   
4. Good post-election summary
   
   
5. Good line from Sullivan's page: "The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults," - Alexis de Tocqueville.
   
   
6. And whoa, Palin didn't know Africa was a continent (again, are you surprised?)
   

Backpost finished 2009-12-07.

Some Predictions, Part 2: Cabinet

I originally discussed this question here, here and here. The picture has changed a little, seeing who has helped the most or not at all. A summary of the previous discussions:

1. Tom Daschle can get any post he wants, he's been that important.
   
2. State: Gov. Richardson (D-NM),
   
3. Def.: Fmr Sen. (D-GA) Sam Nunn.
   
4. AG: Sen. Feingold (D-WI), Sen. Kerry (D-MA)
   
5. Treas.: Fmr Sec Robert Reich, Mayor Bloomberg, Fmr NJ Sen Bradley, Fmr Commerce Sec Daley.
   
6. Others John Edwards: HUD, Interior or Labor.

Since then, there have been changes in the world. First of all, John Edwards is out, permanently. Also, Hillary Clinton - whom I still haven't forgiven for her disgraceful primary behavior - won't want a cabinet post. She will want to stay in the Senate - where the money is. Moreover, it's unclear if Obama needs to pay her any lip service at all, especially if he has some women in prominent places in the cabinet. Moreover, I think that Richardson hasn't proven himself so useful, so why put him in State except for tokenism? That could open up.

The biggest change from these May predictions is the new necessity of real talent/gravitas in the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce. Why - because these two posts will be the most important of the cabinet in terms of the #1 perceived problem - the economy (I say perceived because I believe that there are two more important: Attorney General, to reverse the grave civil liberties abuses, then Defense/Homeland Security to get us out of Iraq and to protect us at home; the Iraq War is directly related to the cratering economy and the Homeland Security department needs to be eliminated and put back to the original offices)

My feeling is that Obama may choose Paul Krugman for either post. Krugman just won a Nobel prize, was a well-known and prescient critic of Bush and the Housing Bubble, and was also a Hillary supporter and a bastard toward Obama. BHO seems to follow the Lincolnian "cabinet of rivals" doctrine, something that I respect highly about both men. By choosing Krugman, BHO will show his independence, veneration of competence, and strength of character.

Another possible option for either is Barney Frank. He's been in the House since 1981 and is the current chair of Financial Services. I think that Obama may feel compelled to put an openly gay person in the cabinet and Treasury (asop Commerce) may be enough of a carrot to get a powerful congressman to leave his chairmanship.

A person I overlooked in May was Dick Gephart. He was House majority leader for a while, and his staff has been a huge help to Obama. Possibly Labor. Another strong possibility is Cory Booker for HUD, or some other low level post (Booker is a Rhodes Scholar, current mayor of Newark and was thought to be more likely than Obama to be first black president... but he's only a mayor, of a cruddy town, and after a term in HUD or Education he can run for Senate/Governor).

Some people who have distinguished themselves in the general election who need to be repaid:

1. Gov. Sebelius, who I thought as a good VP pick, should get a cabinet post.
2. Gov. Napolitano should run against McCain for Senate in 2010. TPM reported yesterday that current polls show McCain losing to her by 53%-45%! Stunning when you think of it. But McCain may retire on November 5 and I don't know if she can resign as governor after appointing herself as Senator...
   
3. Colin Powell crucial endorsement a few days ago has now put him in the cabinet running. Ideologically I don't want a Republican to be in either Defense or NSA - I want to break the myth that only republicans know defense. The myth has been shattered by GWB anyway, so why resurrect it? Powell still may be useful as UN Ambassador, or possibly Ambassador to Iraq (heh heh), or maybe Sec. of Veterans Affairs, if its not beneath him.
   
4. Rep. Robert Wexler has done yoeman's work as an Obama surrogate in Florida. Wexler's also an Orthodox Jew and I'd like to see him put in a low-level cabinet position (Transport, Energy) or even Ambassador to Israel. Then, like Booker, after a stint in the Executive he can shoot for Gov/Senate
   
5. There are a number of former officials (following my purple rule) that could be useful as well: Gary Hart, Lincoln Chafee, Paul Volcker, Larry Summers, etc.
   
6. A last 'cabinet of rivals' thought: Joe Lieberman for Homeland Security. Lieberman has acted shamefully in this election; he has bitten Obama's hand despite BHO's help to Lieberman back in '06. I am especially angered by Joe's hypocrisy: back in 1998 Joe publicly criticized Bill Clinton for the shameful act of adultery etc. Yet 10 years later, Joe is a HUGE supporter of what the TPM has claimed is one of the lowest, evil elections in a century. Where is Joe's outrage now? The fact that he's not calling McCain out for the terrorist smears shows that Joe was opportunistically criticizing Clinton (it did get him VP!) and has lost his moral compass now. So why do I want him to get Homeland Security. Even beyond the rivals idea, it because it will get Lieberman out of the Senate and then Obama can dissolve the whole department. Har.

Times: Conservative Ire Pushed McCain From Lieberman

As you recall, just a day or two ago, when I was predicting (as I do) the possible McCain VPs, I - like everyone else - did not even include Palin as a possibility. And while it looks like she will be a creeping disaster, I was most afraid of a Lieberman nomination (mainly because I like him personally and I didn't want him to be the most hated man in America).

So it turns out that my fears were not unfounded. According to the Times (Conservative Ire Pushed McCain From Lieberman):

"For weeks, advisers close to the campaign said, Mr. McCain had wanted to name as his running mate his good friend Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrat turned independent. But by the end of last weekend, the outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that Mr. McCain would fill out the Republican ticket with Mr. Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, had become too intense to be ignored."

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-03.

McCain VP Speculation

I am on record believing it will be SC Senator Lindsey Graham. My brother points out that it's not possible because the man, uh, may be gay. Why say that? Well, he's a never-married in his 50s (and the fact that his name is "Lindsey" and his father's name, according to the Wiki was Florence. No joke.) Anyway, I still believe McCain doesn't care, but he's also a not-so-bright geriatric hothead, so anything can happen.

What worries me is Joe Lieberman. I've claimed that he won't accept the Republican nomination, but, like McCain, he's barely mentally competent nowadays, so I have lost my confidence.

Recent stories suggest that he won't remove himself from contention (see
here from Politico.com: "Rove tried to kill Lieberman VP pick.") It worries me as a pick not because I think it will be a formidable combo - quite the opposite - but because of the residual effects:

1. Lieberman will become the most hated man in America, second only to anyone involved in the current Executive branch: I like the man personally. He's the most prominent Orthodox Jew in America, possibly the world; and to have him a hated/reviled figure is a bad thing for him and a bad thing for all Jews.

2. The Democrats will lose the Senate: If Lieberman becomes the GOP nominee, I assume he'll leave the Democratic caucus and we'll then lose the Senate.

It won't be a good ticket because Lieberman is so hated by Democrats that - if he joins the GOP - he will become the Hillary Clinton type; Democats will flock to destroy him, the traitor. And he's not charismatic or likeable anymore.

Don't do it Joe.

Obama Defends Lieberman in 2006

Never saw this story before, but Obama was gracious and nice to Lieberman back in 2006 in a gutsy way:

HARTFORD, March 31 — Three times on Thursday night, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman asked the crowd of 1,700 for quiet during his remarks at the state Democrats' annual Jefferson Jackson Bailey fund-raising dinner. "Shhh," he told the guests. But rather than interrupting him with applause, many were ignoring him, having struck up conversations after finishing their chicken. The inattentiveness — as well as the scattered boos amid the supportive calls of "Joe" that welcomed Mr. Lieberman to the podium — convinced some that the three-term senator, criticized for months because of his continued support for the war in Iraq, may be vulnerable in the primary challenge he faces.

[snip]

A few minutes later, however, the audience was riveted as Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the guest speaker at the $175-a-plate dinner, stood on the podium and began the customary round of recognition of candidates and incumbents in the room. When he got to Mr. Lieberman, who is his mentor in the Senate and who helped recruit him to speak at the event, the applause again was muted.

"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."

Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate."

That time, people cheered loudly.

Again, the more we find out about Obama the more we see he's a class act. Recently, I am having a lot of trouble defending Lieberman, but I like him personally and I'm glad to see someone defend him like this.

h/t: this guy.

60 seats in the Senate? (And Response)

This is in response to the idea that Obama may get 60 Democrats in the Senate, an email I sent to Mark Kleiman of the RBC. I've redacted for publication. My argument is that it may not be necessary:

To be honest, all we (Democrats) need are 52 seats. At least according to my theory... Ya see, the reason why 60 is necessary is because of the most recent set of Senate rules that require that arbitrary number to end a filibuster. As we learned back in 2004-2006, the GOP was threatening us with a "nuclear option" that would have removed the filibuster entirely (or at least that's what the Wiki tells me).

Now that we won back the Senate, why don't we just enact the nuclear option? Especially when the rate of filibustering has gone through the roof and the bills being squashed are matters of life and death? Here's where my theory comes in: Senator Lieberman.

Lieberman was on the "gang of 14." And he's the only reason why the Senate is in the Democrats' hands right now. My theory is that if Reid tries to implement the nuclear option, then Lieberman will leave the Democratic caucus and throw the Senate into balance (making Cheney the head) or even start caucusing with the GOP! And because of that 51-49 balance, the 60 supermajority is still needed.

If my theory is correct, then all it would take *right now* to end the filibuster impasses would be for one more defection to the Democrats (Collins? Warner?) But if that doesn't happen, then even without getting 60, as long as we have 52, Reid can use the nuclear option.

Kleiman's Response:

I thought, and think, that the "nuclear option" involves flat-out cheating. I wouldn't want to see the Democrats use it.

Me:

Not even to stop torture? Congress has been squashed by the executive for a long time, a few 'nuclear strikes' by the Senate - just to roll back some of the major excesses - may be in order.

Kleiman:

If the Dems have that much backbone, there's other stuff to do that's fully legal.

Anyway, I expect the executive to change hands. The question is how much legislation we can pass.

Backpost finished 4/11/08, updated 2009-12-15.

Lieberman Endorses McCain

So Lieberman did it, he endorsed McCain for 2008. One can surely wonder how a life-long Democrat, someone who won the VP as a Dem 2 terms ago, could endorse someone from the other side? Well, even if you didn't ask it, my mom did. And here was my answer:

Over the weekend I was hearing rumors that this would happen. I am not entirely surprised... Lieberman is a rare politician who actually takes things personally. McCain stayed loyal to him, they are very good buddies, and close. Don't forget, also that McCain had toyed switching to the Democrats at one point (2002 I think) and was even considering being Kerry's running mate in '04. Even though McCain is crazy conservative on some issues, he isn't on others and same thing with Joe as a liberal.

Alls said and done, McCain probably called in a chip to Lieberman and since Hillary, Dodd, Obama and Edwards all abandoned him in '06, Lieberman felt that he could allow McCain to cash that chip.

Again, the way I see it is that Lieberman - the Independent - is not supporting the party (GOP) for president but the man (McCain). And if McCain wins (which is still unlikely, but, hey, ya never know), Lieberman could very well be his running mate.

Lieberman has angered me with his intransigence on national security and constitutional issues... but considering the way the Democrats threw him under a bus in '06, I can't entirely blame him. Just slightly...

Backpost finished 2009-12-14.

Last Year at This Time

As I wrote below about being on vacation, I'm currently at my parents' home in Maryland. We come here for vacation so my mom can take care of our kids while my wife and I try to relax. My mom is the only one who has the same energy level as my eldest, so it's a good match.

This year has a totally different feel from 2006. Besides the obvious facet of our having a whole 'nother child along (which makes the adult to kid ratio inadequate for a full bore relaxation), I see from this computer (and from the blog template) what I was fixated on 12 months ago: 1. the second Lebanon war, 2. the Connecticut primary battle.

I would not have predicted 12 months ago that the Lebanon war would go so badly or that once it had been botched that Olmert would still be in power. Nor would I have predicted that after his November win Lieberman would become a hackneyed quasi-Republican stooge. A few comments:

Olmert

Israel - because it's constantly hanging on the lip of doom - is supposed to take leadership quality much more seriously than we do here. Possibly that holds only for their military and not politicians (and that's possibly the opposite structure in America). The US military could be staffed by high level morons and we regular citizens wouldn't even know until the Russkis/Red Chinese/Cubans have conquered the Midwest. The military just has very little to do with everyday life and the protective redundancy built into our 'Homeland Security' means that we just don't pay attention. But our politicians are constantly in our eyesight - probably because we have so many of them and because we insist on constant elections.

Israel seems the opposite. Their military is integral to the citizenry. Everyone serves (except the ultra-orthodox and anti-Israel Arabs... an interesting set of bedfellows). The military is everywhere and is constantly being tested for its efficiency. If something is broke in the military it will swiftly be fixed because the stakes are so high, the scrutiny is so high, and the participation is so high.

The Israeli political class, however, appears to be held in purposeful contempt. Government doesn't really work in Israel; it's a parliamentary system that has infrequent elections and no direct representation. Taxes are very high but to get anything done you need to use corruption - bribery or nepotism. As such, the politicians in Israel seem to be universally corrupt, contemptuous, and negligible.

Cases in point: (1) Olmert botched a war and is still in power, (2) Chaim Ramon sexually assaulted a soldier and is now deputy prime minister, (3) Peres, second in command during the War is now president.

However, the only politician that may be held to the same high standard as the military is the Defense Secretary. Cases in point: (1) Halutz, army head during Lebanon, is gone; (2) Amir Peretz, defense secretary, is gone; (3) Ehud Barak, despite being a disgraced failure of a PM, is still a talented general and so he was promoted to head of Labor and made Defense Secretary.

Under this analysis, it all makes sense. Olmert is still PM because Israelis don't consider it an all that important job; theoretically if Halutz hadn't resigned, then he would have been forced to.

The other component of Olmert's eerie longevity is that he's probably a stupendous political infighter. How else to explain how he managed to be number 2 in Kadima, the next prime minister after Sharon's incapacitation, still PM after a fiasco *plus* getting his favored candidates as President (Peres, who beat both Labor and Likud candidates and who had never before won an election), head of Labor (Barak, as opposed to Ayalon who pledged to bring Olmert down), and keep convicted pervert Ramon in government (*and* promote him). These are extraordinary political accomplishments and make me frightened of Olmert’s abilities.

Yet, despite all that I took down a picture of me and Olmert from my office wall… maybe I’ll put it back up if he manages to liberate Shalit, Regev and Goldvasser.

Lieberman

This is a more mundane story. Joe started to go wacky before Lamont threatened him. I believe the loss of his mother – who I’ve been told acted as his moral and political gyroscope – made Lieberman do all these politically stupid things. I also think that had the Democrats not tried to throw Joe under a bus last August, he’d be less likely now to betray his party principals. It is said that people suffer a loss of loyalty when their employer unsuccessfully tries to fire them. So too with Joe.

It’s still sad to see a man of integrity defend this criminal presidency. Isn’t it ironic that the two men people considered party mavericks - McCain and Lieberman – have destroyed their public integrity by their staunch support of a detested president and a bald fiasco of a war?

If I figure out how that happened, I will learn a great secret of life.

{2009 Update: cool Lebanon map from Debka. Lieberman doggie pic from here.}

About the Standing O

The story of the Lieberman Standing Ovation was posted on the Talking Points Memo Cafe and naturally there were bitter whiny comments about Lieberman, the Democrats, and Kaiser Wilhelm II. I think. Anyway, here is my response:

First of all, because it bears repeating: yay we won!!

Second of all, after we noticed we won, the two sides of the Democratic party tried to claim the credit. The two sides don't really agree that much and given a chance would destroy the other.

This Democratic party civil war can be seen in three examples:

1. Rahm vs. Netroots
2. Dean vs. Ford
3. Lieberman vs. Lamont

1. Rahm vs. Netroots - who gets credit? The answer is both, but the partisans on either side (Right Wing Democrats, RWD, say Rahm, Left Wing Democrats, LWD, say the Netroots) try to exclude the other as a matter of rheroric and positioning.

2. Dean vs. Ford - who should be the head of the DNC? When replacing Dean with Harold Ford Jr. was brought up on the New Republic blog I saw some vicious comments about Ford from, what I assume are, LWD who know that attacking Dean is attacking them.

3. Lieberman vs. Lamont. The biggie. Lieberman has been demonized to a level that I've only seen applied to the State of Israel. He's accused of being a closet Republican and in favor of rape, among other things. To RWD, he's a hero. To LWD he's the devil.

To many of the congressional leaders, the Lamont/Lieberman battle was the civil war of the Democratic party writ large and they were quite worried about the outcome. I would assume that if Lamont had won he too would have received a standing-O because he embodies the LWD. Either way, the senators would be clapping for the wing of the Democratic party that became ascendant.

I'm not sure what to do about the civil war in the Democratic party. I don't see it going away and I hope we can attack the real enemies (Bush, Cheney) and not our own party-members… then again, I think the Lamont-Democrats, in their demonizing of Lieberman, don't think that the Right Wing Democrats really *are* in the party, so that allows the LWD to attack attack attack. Sigh.

As a postscript for the Styx: I do think that the 2006 election may have been the death-knell for two political movements:

(1) the Regan Democrats who left for the GOP in 1980 (and re-solidified in 1994) have now returned. Thus endeth the Reagan Revolution (and the Gingrich Burp)

(2) the McGovern Democrats who ruled the party since 1968 have now been routed. They were defeated on the fields of Connecticut and buried by the massive moderate vote-tally in this midterm election.

Both are very good signs for Moderate Democrats like myself. Long live Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Joe Lieberman.

Senate Democrats give Lieberman standing ovation

From the CNN Political Ticker:

Senate Democrats give Lieberman standing ovation

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who bolted the Democratic party after losing a primary election this year to run as an independent, won a standing ovation at a closed meeting of all Senate Democrats Tuesday.

The Senate Democrats know the score.

On the Lieberman Win

One of the 'vital center' bloggers, the Bull Moose, on the highly gratifying Lieberman win.

Weep, Kos.

Liberman Wins and has the Best Line

From Hotline On Call:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), in his victory speech: 'Love you. I'm Joe Lieberman and I approve of this election'.

Senate Predictions

If I attempt to predict the Oscars, which are meaningless, then I have to at least try the Senate. Even though it kills me... but as my brother and I often say, if the Israelites could believe 10 idiots over Moshe Rabbeinu when it came to the sin of the spies, so people can trust George Dick & Donald.

The data I use to determine the predictions - for the 14 top close races - comes from the average of the major polls as tabulated by RealClearPolitics.

My basic rule of thumb, based on 2004, is that if a Democrat is under 50% in the average polls, he will lose. The Republican machine has been shown to be super efficient at bridging the gap.

Bold = my predicted winner. *=incumbent.

Arizona = Kyl (R)* 49.3% vs. Pederson (D) 40.7%
Connecticut = Lieberman (I) 49.8% vs. Lamont (D) 38.0%
Maryland = Steele (R) 45.0% vs. Cardin (D) 48.7%
Michigan = Bouchard (R) 37.8% vs. Stabenow (D)* 52.3%
Minnesota = Kennedy (R) 37.7% vs. Klobuchar (D) 53.0%
Missouri = Talent (R)* 45.3% vs. McCaskill (D) 48.5%
Montana = Burns (R)* 45.5% vs. Tester (D) 48.5%
New Jersey = Kean (R) 41.8% vs. Menendez (D)* 48.2%
Ohio = DeWine (R)* 43.3% vs. Brown (D) 53.3%
Pennsylvania = Santorum (R)* 40.8% vs. Casey (D) 52.3%
Rhode Island = Chafee (R) 43.3% vs. Whitehouse (D) 48.7%
Tennessee = Corker (R) 50.3% vs. Ford (D) 44.3%
Virginia = Allen (R)* 46.8% vs. Webb (D) 48.3%
Washington = McGavick (R) 40.5% vs. Cantwell (D)* 53.8%

TOTALS
8 wins for Republicans (AZ, MD, MO, MT, NJ, RI, TN, VA)
6 wins for Democrats (CT, MI, MN, OH, PA, WA)

Republicans will take Democratic seats from NJ and MD. Democrats will take Republican seats in OH and PA.

Letter to Andrew Sullivan

The body of a letter I just sent:

I am a 34 year old son of staunch moderate Democrats. The first election I could vote in was 1992. Which means my Democratic voting life has been defined and dominated by the Clintonian view of the party. Which started with a tax hike, no question, [but that undid the 12 years of deficit spending and] led to a galvanic economic boom. Compared with Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2, Clinton was a model of fiscal restraint and doing more with less and less government.

Given that, how can the label "tax and spend Democrat" have any mileage? Maybe there are some of these tax-liberals still left (I do live in Lamont-ridden Connecticut) but they haven't been in power since Carter. As far as I can tell, being a Democrat means believing in small government and fiscal restraint while being a Republican, Reagan Bush or Bush, means to borrow lots of money and spend lots of money.

I think why you and many other conservatives are finding the Democrats more palatable is because the Republicans now stand for all the things for which the Democrats had been reviled: (1) reckless spending, (2) weak/dangerous foreign policy, (3) high taxes (because my tax dollar goes mainly to pay for debt), (4) constant intrusion into bedroom and classroom, and (5) absurd moral posturing.

I know that all those things were the Democratic talking points from McGovern to Dukakis, but Clinton ended that and for people like me, there's been no other Democrat to define the party. The Republicans now own those 5 talking points. All the recent reports tell us that the "independents" and "unaffiliated" voters are the fastest growing group in this country. Those people, I believe, are the ones who hate the 5 points above and will follow whomever can embody good government.

Which is why I hope and pray the Democrats win on Tuesday and they will try to live up to the Clinton leadership legacy of moderation. If not, then it really may be time for a third party - and the numbers will be there.

New Democrats

This is a letter I sent to Sullivan (as usual, he gave no acknowledgment):

Dear Mr. Sullivan,

I am a 34 year old son of staunch moderate Democrats. The first election I could vote in was 1992. Which means my Democratic voting life has been defined and dominated by the Clintonian view of the party. Which started with a tax hike, no question, which led to a galvanic economic boom. Compared with Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2, Clinton was a model of fiscal restraint and doing more with less and less government.

Given that, how can the label "tax and spend Democrat" have any mileage? Maybe there are some of these tax-liberals still left (I do live in Lamont-ridden Connecticut) but they haven't been in power since Carter. As far as I can tell, being a Democrat means believing in small government and fiscal restraint while being a Republican, Reagan Bush or Bush, means to borrow lots of money and spend lots of money.

I think why you and many other conservatives are finding the Democrats more palatable is because the Republicans now stand for all the things for which the Democrats had been reviled: (1) reckless spending, (2) weak/dangerous foreign policy, (3) high taxes (because my tax dollar goes mainly to pay for debt), (4) constant intrusion into bedroom and classroom, and (5) absurd moral posturing.

I know that all those things were the Democratic talking points from McGovern to Dukakis, but Clinton ended that and for people like me, there's been no other Democrat to define the party. The Republicans now own those 5 talking points. All the recent reports tell us that the "independents" and "unaffiliated" voters are the fastest growing group in this country. Those people, I believe, are the ones who hate the 5 points above and will follow whomever can embody good government.

Which is why I hope and pray the Democrats win on Tuesday and they will try to live up to the Clinton leadership legacy of moderation. If not, then it really may be time for a third party - and the numbers will be there.

All the best,
JC

Backpost finished 2009-11-29. Yet another one that was completely finished.

Quinnipiac Poll - Joe Ahead by 17

A promising poll from Quinnipiac University has Lieberman leading Lamont 52 to 37. Even more interesting, see the full breakdown of Joe's support.