Joe Liberman?

Joe Lieberman is a Democrat, but apparently not for long, or so says Carrie Budoff of “The Politico”:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico on Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties but suggested that Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.

Lieberman, a self-styled independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.

“I have no desire to change parties,” Lieberman said in a telephone interview. “If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don’t feel comfortable with.”

..

He suggested, however, that the forthcoming showdown over new funding could be a deciding factor that would lure him to the Republican Party.

“I hope we don’t get to that point,” Lieberman said. “That’s about all I will say on it today. That would hurt.”

Hmmm. Sounds strangely like another former Democrat… Ronald Reagan. Well, at least he’s in good company. Strangely, such a move would not only place him, politically speaking, to the right of McCain and Gullianni, it would also open the door to his running for President as a Republican.

But don’t have any ideas, folks, about his changing party, flipping the Senate back to Republican hands. It ain’t gonna happen.

But even if he changes parties and NONE of those things happen… it would be illustrative of how far away the Democrats have drifted.

In the category of dog bites man, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign acknowledges two more bought and paid for campaign endorsements:

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – Two more black South Carolina lawmakers endorsing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have ties to a media consulting firm hired by the White House hopeful. However, both the lawmakers and the campaign said Thursday their support has nothing to do with any business dealings.

Until such time as Mrs. Clinton comes clean, the logical assumption is that she pays for all her campaign endorsements. America should demand better.

 Billy,

In my own case, I took the incident in its broadest possible context, which necessarily includes the general lapse of reason (actual thinking and its application) in American affairs, which, in turn, can only result in a general rise of, well, savagery. Look: it’s one or the other. People either act like human beings by leading with their brains — which most certainly is possible, all evidence to the contrary being impertinent — or they sink below their nature to the scratchings of animals. This whole issue is of the direst importance going forward in every direction, with greatest emphasis on politics. Naturally the incident that Bruce points out is political in nature, which is its principal value as a datapoint. It’s a good eye pointing it out, and Bruce asks exactly the right question at the lead.
 

The real issue here at the moment is a desperation on the part of those PUSHING bad ideas. Every socialist from Hitler on down has used violence when nothing else worked. Which, of course is why I gave the  response I did… there should be no suprise attached to the event, given it’s happened so often before… even just when limited to the Democratic Party…

You’re quite right to point to it as a political event, and still further to point to the young people coming up. Because, after all, what are politics but a reflection of values… a means to the end of supporting one’s values? What we’re seeing here is a recognition that their agende simply isn’t selling with the American people, who in the end are a bit smarter than we give them credit for. When you teach the kids the crap the government schools are pushing, and the crap doesn’t work, and doesn’t get adopted, they’re going to get frustrated, and desperate. In their desperation they’ll see such acts as being justified. We’ve seen Unions going the same direction for a hundred years… and no shock that they’re in the pocket of the Democrats. The connections are all there.

The problem with that state of affairs is that nobody participating in such acts, on the ground floor, if you will,  recognizes it for that. Rather, they find themselves looking at it like BinLaden… a little desperation on the part of some tends to push the agende far better than the more sedate methods ever could. Look what it did for him.

I’ve said all this before, which was part of my vieled point to Bruce:

There is an old saying, of which there are several variations I’ve heard, but the gist of it is that of all the emotions, only love is unreasonable. By that, it is meant that only love is illogical and its applications. There is no logical reason for John to fall in love with Mary, for example. Yet happily, it happens many times a day.

Now, also consider; It is also said of old, that hate is love turned in on itself. Is the anger that we are seeing in the society of today, hate? It most certainly has all the earmarks of it. Some of it includes self hatred along with the hatred being directed of everybody else.

 What we have in front of us, under discussion, is a reason- less also. The arguments presented in support of the kind of anger we see do not make sense. Never have. Which to my mind, raises the likelihood that the “reasons” that are offered are merely excuses ; they are operating on sheer emotionalism, without reason, without logic.

So, we are faced with the same question asked by King Theodin in Lord of the Rings, in a different context; “How do we deal with such mindless hate?”

That, I think is going to be the question of our time. One possible answer to that question, is that the un-angry majority, finally gets angry themselves and quietly, like the anti-heros of old, stands up and says “that’s enough” and displays a little anger of their own. I suspect the resulting display is going to be terrible to behold. It will also undoubtedly take on a cultural context the likes of which has not been seen since the American civil war. This is going to be a happening, that not many of even the anti heroes are going to walk away from, into the sunset.
But, there’s a backlash building against all this nonsense, already. there will be a great number ostensibly open minded people, finally realizing the nature of the attack that they’re under. When that happens, and they respond, it will be ugly.

I will quietly tell you that I hope I’m not alive to see it.

Today is the birthday of our first President… as The Trunk reminds us.

The Gateway Pundit has the Vice President speaking truth to power:

“I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we’ll do is validate the al Qaeda strategy,” Cheney told ABC News.

“The al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people, knowing they can’t win in a stand-up fight, try to convince us to throw in the towel and come home and then they win because we quit,” he said.

The Vice President’s position is beyond dispute   If we quit, al Qaeda wins.   So what does Mrs. Pelosi do when called out by the truth?  Fox News reporst that she whines:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday phoned President Bush to air her complaints over Vice President Dick Cheney‘s comments that the Congressional Democrats’ plan for Iraq would “validate the Al Qaeda strategy.”

Madam Speaker  either grow up and act like an adult, or resign as speaker.

Addendum:  Compare and contrast, the Vice President, Richafd Cheney, also had less than kind words for Senator John McCain.  From Miake Allen, Politico:

But Cheney made it clear during an interview with ABC News Wednesday that he was none too pleased with McCain’s declaration on Monday at a retirement community near Hilton Head Island, S.C.: “I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of Defense in history.” McCain was greeted with applause.

I am not aware of any reports of McCain panning Cheney for impugning his patriotism.   McCain’s response was that of an adult.  Mrs. Pelosi would do well to learn to do the same.

As an update to yesterday, I see now where Bill Richardson has opened his mouth, and stuck his foot in up to his kneecap. He is now suggesting that Barrack Obama apologize to Hillary Clinton, for David Geffen’s comments. And of course, he should get the money back, if we take Richardson seriously. If we do take him seriously, then we must consider his ability to process facts is seriously impaired, and that he is unqualified for any office, much less the one he seeks.

Was there a transition of David Geffen’s position, from financial contributor, to political consultant, that I was unaware of? At what point did David Geffen become an official spokesperson for the Obama Campaign? I am hardly one to defend Obama, but blaming him for something that Joe or Jane Citizen says, regardless of how much money they’ve got, does seem to be a bit of a stretch. Is Geffen now considered an authority by virtue of his money?

To the everlasting credit of the Obama campaign, they did come out with a broadside… you should pardon the pun, against Hillary Clinton:

`We aren’t going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters,” Obama communications director Robert Gibbs said in a statement. “It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom.”

Then Gibbs added another criticism of Clinton.

“It is also ironic that Senator Clinton lavished praise on Monday and is fully willing to accept today the support of South Carolina state Sen. Robert Ford, who said if Barack Obama were to win the nomination, he would drag down the rest of the Democratic Party because ‘he’s black,”’ Gibbs’ statement said.

These people are over a year away from election day, and they’ve already gotten this nasty? This desperate? Geffen for all his stupidity, got one thing right when he said Hillary Clinton was a divisive figure. I have to tell you, friends, this is going to be a fun and productive election season, watching the Democrats destroy themselves.

Addendum: (David L)   So when do we get the official word from Albuquerque, that Governor Richardson is running for vice president?

I see via email that Nathan Tabor has announced he will be serving as Director of Internet Outreach for Duncan Hunter’s presidential campaign.

Says Tabor:

“I joined the Hunter campaign because of his commitment to conservative principles. Duncan Hunter is a staunch advocate of limiting government, securing our borders, and defending our nation. When it comes to character, Congressman Hunter exhibits the qualities that we need the most right now. “

Oh, come on. I mean, I like the boy better than some, Nathan, but let’s not break our back in overstating the case, OK?

Hunter being a part of the gang of fourteen, led by John McCain, does not strike me as being a staunch advocate of limiting government, since McCain NEVER has…  Calling for illegal alien amnesty, which Hunter has done, does not strike me as indication of being overly interested in securing our borders and defending our nation.

Let’s be clear about this;

For the moment  Hunter has my support by process of elimination. In other words he’s looking the least problematic, but not by a great deal. This kind of overblown nonsense doesn’t help.

Udpate: (Bit)– Please note the correction in the comments, and my response.

Clearly, I got Hunter and Hagel cross linked somehow in my notes. My apologies. But two things pop out of that;

* That it took someone from the campaign to correct it; (Nobody, out of the few thousand people who saw the post knew enough to correct it) which to my mind suggests a real uphill battle for Hunter.

* The attitude reflected in the correction does not strike me as someone who will be making a lot of freinds.  If you’ve got an uphill battle toward an election, you need to be less snarky to survive.

The Timesonline(UK) reports the death of Zilla Huma Usman, 35, of Parkistan. murdered for not wearing a veil:

A Pakistani minister and woman’s activist has been shot dead by an Islamic extremist for refusing to wear the veil.

Zilla Huma Usman, the minister for social welfare in Punjab province and an ally of President Pervez Musharraf, was killed as she was about to deliver a speech to dozens of party activists, by a “fanatic”, who believed that she was dressed inappropriately and that women should not be involved in politics, officials said.

No apparent coment from the National Organization for Women.   NOW, won’t say it, but I will. Killing anybody for violation of an dress code, no matter what the source, is barbaric.

(H/T: Thomas Lifson, American Thinker, James Taranto, Opinon Journal )

Those who make there living throwing rocks, had best become proficient at ducking, or so it would seem.  Mrs. Clinton is conducting an ever increasingly shrill campaign, while her campaign minions preach peace and civililty.    I never did buy the Clintons act saying one thing while doing the exact opposite.   The Clinton pretend to abhor the poltics of personal destruction while wallowing it it.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is getting catty:

Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson issued the following statement today demanding that Barack Obama disavow personal attacks that his campaign finance chair made against Senator Clinton in this morning’s New York Times:

Camp Clinton is upset because former Friend of Bill,  Bill Geffen, has endorsed Barack Obama.  Evidently somebody at the Clinton campaign forgot to mail Geffen’s endorsement check.

E & P is quoting a Maureen Dowd column  attributing remarks to Geffen, which is hidden behind the New York Times, subscription wall.   For those willing to subscribe.

— “I don’t think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person,” Mr. Geffen says, adding that if Republicans are digging up dirt, they’ll wait until Hillary’s the nominee to use it. “I think they believe she’s the easiest to defeat.”

— She is overproduced and overscripted. “It’s not a very big thing to say, ‘I made a mistake’ on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can’t,” Mr. Geffen says. “She’s so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base. I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms.”

One such fed up liberal bloger is John in DC, AMERICAblog, who suggests, “Hillary is Sistah Souljah’ing the entire Democratic Party:”

I don’t relish writing these repeated columns deploring Senator Clinton – you’ll recall that we were one of the blogs that, up until recently, didn’t have a problemwith her (check our archives, you won’t find a lot of Hillary (or Bill) bashing). But Senator Clinton’s increasingly nasty campaign tactics and anti-Democratic messaging is getting out of control.

More, Joe Gandelman, Moderate Voice.

Mrs. Clinton is too vain and egotistical to president.   John Edwards too not serious, and Barack Obama is too green.  The Democrats need Bill Richardson, but are they smart enough to know it?

Addendum I: (Bit)

As to Geffen’s statements, he’s correct… but… This is clearly a case of the blind pig and the acorn.  Why did it take Geffen so long to get a grip on the obvious about the Clintons? Blindness is the only excuse. Similarly, how is it that Geffen thinks Obama’s going to be any better? Same answer.

Addendum II: (David L)   Mrs. Clinton has admitted to paying cash to those from whom she accepts endorsements.   That is just a fact.   I am going to assume, until Mrs. Clinton can show otherwise, that all her endorsements were purchased.    Geffen unendorsed Mrs. Clinton because his endorsement check was not mailed.  Also, Geffen was lobbying for an end of term Clinton pardon that was not given.  From the Dowd column via Mary Katherine Ham:

They fell out in 2000, when Mr. Clinton gave a pardon to Marc Richafter rebuffing Mr. Geffen’s request for one for Leonard Peltier. “MarcRich getting pardoned? An oil-profiteer expatriate who left the countryrather than pay taxes or face justice?” Mr. Geffen says. “Yet anothertime when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that theygenuinely believe in.

Color Geffen a sore loser.

To me, Maureeen Dowd is more interesting question.   What prompted Dowd to unload on both Clinton and Obama this week?

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Scott Ott, Scrabbleface,  has breaking news, “Hilllary shaves head.”

Addendum III:  Brevity is the soul of wit.  John, Powerline, offers a pity summation of the Clinton – Obama spat. 

2008 is a long way off, of course, and there’s plenty of time for the candidates to make up. Still, it’s striking how little it took for the first fur to fly; much worse aggravations will occur before the primary season is over. Whether the candidates are ultimately able to unite on a ticket may ultimately depend on whether the Clintons are forgiving people or vindictive people.

Hmm.

Hmm, indeed!

It is, apparently, a measure of either how twisted our news gathering orgs have become, or that it’s a slow news day for them, when the lead story on all the TV nets this morning amounted to “Anna Nicole Simpson is still dead.”, with a follow up story about how Trailer Trash Barbie is back in Rehab, again. And just in case we run outta stuff in those two situations, there’s always the Phil Spector trial waiting in the wings.

Or perhaps they’d rather not spend any time following real news stories? I’ll bet they wonder why people refuse to take them seriously, anymore.

In the New York Post, Zev Chafet pegs Jack Murtha:

LISTENING to Rep. John Murtha’s arguments against the American troop surge in Iraq reminds me of a scene in “Bananas

Facing an insurgency, the Latin American dictator in that Woody Allen classic reaches out for American aid. But he mistakenly calls in not the CIA, but the UJA – the United Jewish Appeal. Black-hatted rabbis, holding little charity boxes, are soon wandering through the chaotic battle zone.

I wonder if Think Progress will not accuse Chafet of “smearing” Murtha?:

Alex Knapp over at OTB, wonders how it is that Bill RIchardson hasn’t gotten more attention from the Democrats.

He thinks it may have something to do with the issue of fame; I disagree. They all knew nothing about Bill Clinton, back in the day.

The answer however is simple enough; he’s not strident enough to attract the attention of the BDS sufferers the party is being held hostage by. Thus has the party become functionally disconnected from the mainstream of America, their claims of being the mainstream of America not withstanding.
it’s to the point now, where anyone who makes it through the Democratic primary, is not going to make it in the general election.

By way of IRATE NATION, here’s a list of those RINOs who voted for the ‘non-binding resolution’… in short, those who voted for our defeat in Iraq.

I respectfully submit it’s time we voted for THEIR defeat next time ’round.

House

• Rep. James T. Walsh (NY)
• Rep. Walter Jones (NC)
• Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (MD)
• Rep. Mike Castle (DE)
• Rep. Ric Keller (FL)
• Rep. Phil English (PA)
• Rep. Ron Paul (TX)
• Rep. Fred Upton (MI)
• Rep. Tom Davis (VA)
• Rep. Mark Kirk (IL)
• Rep. Howard Coble (NC)
• Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (TN)
• Rep. Jim Ramstad (MN)
• Rep. Steve LaTourette (OH)
• Rep. Bob Inglis (SC)
• Rep. Tim Johnson (IL)
• Rep. Tom Petri (WI)

Senate:

• Norm Coleman
• Susan Collins
• John Warner
• Olympia Snowe
• Arlen Specter
• Chuck Hagel
• Gordon Smith

• 40° outside today.  More of the same on tap for tomorrow.  As a result, all that white crap that’s been falling for the last couple of weeks, that I posted the pictures of, is now melting and ending up as water in my basement.  OK, so it’s warming up and I suppose I shouldn’t complain. Still, what a drag. (Pic courtesy of Dr Fun, a personal Favorite… Ya quit too soon, David…) (click for full view)

• I see Joyner posting a poll, which says :
  • 57% believe “The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism.”
  • 57% “support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.
  • 50% want our troops should stay and “do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country” while only 17% favor immediate withdrawal
  • 56% believe “Even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.”
  • 53% believe “The Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq.”

All of this, to my mind is a fair explanation for why the democrats refused to outright vote to cut the funds for the troops, instead following that coward John Murtha.  I suspect and suppose that the democrats have opened a Pandora’s box on this one, but they’re not going to be able to close, nor will they be able to live with it easily, and come November, 2008, will be paying the price for it. The Democrats did manage to pick up the finger in the wind from Bill Clinton.. and must know this too. It’s going to be a very interesting election season if for no other reason than watching the Democrats roasting on the spit they’ve collectively made for themselves.

• “everything Louder than everything else?”  Wasn’t that a Meatloaf tune? Anyway, Loudness wars are something that I understand from the inside, from my broadcast years.  Indeed; audio processing is something I did fairly well; made beer money with it for awhile.  And, yes, I’ve blown out a few modulation transformers in the process, particularly on older transmitters not designed for the kind of modulation density I hit ’em with.  But the fact of the matter is, that if these folks have that much problem with it for the analogy to be correct, they’re not doing it anywhere near right.  And I’m not even going to make much of the MP3 comments.  What the hell kind of a bitstream they’re using to raise that kind of a ruckus over the quality, I don’t even wanna think about.  It’s also kind of ironic that you should use Deep Purple in your quote; Machine Head was one of the first albums that I’m aware of that used multi-band processing to get a high average level going.  They were running it tight enough, that I have for years been amazed that they didn’t get more outside – the- trailer noise when the limiters came up to fill. I’ve always supposed it to be a testament to the audio design of the Stones’ trailer.In any event, I will warrant a guess that more music is being listened to by people carrying and using MP3 players or listening to the selfsame format by means of satellite radio than are listening to it in the more “pure” fashions that these people would propose we do.  They’d best be getting used to the idea pretty quick or they’re going to be maladjusted for the remainder of their overly-pompous lives.
• BitsBox is going in for service in the morning.  The right front wheel bearing is gone out.  To make matters even more entertaining, the wheel bearings on both sides of the front end of my wife’s escape went out on the same day.  She got hers fixed this morning.  Two vastly different designs, same problem, same day, same family.  What do you suppose the odds are?
• It appears that Hillary Clinton is continuing to get negative feedback after asking us all to become involved with a “national conversation “.  I have said it often enough around here, that one of the worst things that you can possibly do for a democrat, is give them precisely what they ask for.  Here’s another such case.

In a recent post, Bit asked “Who is John Edwards?” If we still don’t know who Edwards is, we see what he is — an idiot.  From, Peter Bart, Vanity Fair:

There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the “I” word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

Evidently the Breck Girl has never heard of al Qaeda, Kim Jong Il, or Mahmoud Ahamdinejad.

(H/T: photo, Politics and Culture; article Jim Geraghty, Hillary Spot )