The Sewers Will Overflow As No Labels Gets Dragged Into Court

Mr and Mrs. Shitbag plotting to turn the Democratic Party right

As I've been saying all year, there aren't any foul political groups operating in the election cycle more toxic than No Labels. They came screeching into district after district to save the necks of grotesque conservative Democrats-- like, for example, Dan Lipinski in Chicago, Darren Soto in Orlando and Ann Kirkpatrick in Tucson-- with boatloads of money from Republican billionaires (like the Murdoch family), to spread poisonous lies on behalf of their right-wing candidates. Sometime it worked, sometimes it didn't. This weekend, let's celebrate Dave Weigel of the Washington Post for his report on a lawsuit against No Labels that will shine the light on these monsters who operate in the dark. The key to this is the web of SuperPACs criminal Nancy Jacobson has set up and integrated into the conservative "mission" of No Labels. Her husband-- and co-conspirator-- it's important to remember, is another deservedly despised figure on the political landscape, Mark Penn.

The suit is all about political operatives and contractors who Mr. and Mrs. Shitbag stiffed for millions of dollars this year alone.

In the complaint, which was filed in the Supreme Court of New York this week, strategists Matthew Kalmans and Sacha Samotin say that their firm, Applecart, helped implement No Labels’s current strategy of creating PACs that can invest in primaries and general elections to boost centrist [translation: right-wing] candidates; they seek $3.7 million in damages, saying that money they were owed was shunted away from them, in breach of contract.

No Labels’s leaders and its affiliated strategists say that the lawsuit is without merit and that the charge that Penn was “calling the shots,” as the lawsuit puts it, is baseless.

“We were willing to let the cookie crumble, but if they’re going ahead with this, we’ll be doing a counterclaim," Jacobson said on Friday. "I gave them complete trust and control, and they did not deliver.”

Penn, a former political strategist for both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, has gained new national attention for criticizing special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of the Trump administration. While not affiliated with No Labels, he used a Tuesday appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight to talk up a plan-- advanced by No Labels-- to elect a speaker of the House with bipartisan support.

“There’s a problem-solvers group that is looking to have some influence, if the result is close, in terms of changing the rules and naming the speaker,” Penn said.

The 45-page complaint tells a story of political blunders that Applecart blames on Penn and that No Labels affiliates blame on Applecart. According to the complaint, it was Kalmans and Samotin, Republicans who identified as moderates, who presided over the group’s first political successes.

“It has been well reported that No Labels was a dysfunctional organization with no record of success prior to the 2016 cycle,” Samotin said. “During a time that the experts have said is hostile to centrist candidates, we chose challenging races and were successful in seven out of 11 races. We will defend that record to anybody.”

In 2016, the strategists signed a contract with No Labels that tied them exclusively to the group until 2019. In 2016, they plowed into primaries in Kansas and Florida to boost, respectively, center-right Republican Roger Marshall in a race against then-Rep. Tim Huelskamp, and state legislator Darren Soto in a seat vacated by then-Rep. Alan Grayson. It acted through super PACs, as the “No Labels” association “was thought likely to be unhelpful in a partisan primary election.” Applecart’s other high-profile work in that cycle included data for Gov. John Kasich’s (R-OH) super PAC.

“We were the last candidate to enter the race, and Applecart’s data allowed us to scale quickly despite being wildly outspent by our rivals,” said the PAC’s strategist, Matt David. "Their data helped us ID key supporters in New Hampshire, and the polling predicted the successful result of the primary to the 2nd decimal point.”

After the election, No Labels planned to up the super PAC project and spend $25 million to $50 million in 2018 to continue shaping primaries. The project was approved, and the team began identifying targets-- starting with Illinois’s 3rd District, where Democratic Rep. Daniel Lipinski would end up barely holding off a left-wing challenger.

But Kalmans and Samotin claim that later electoral efforts were undone by Penn. In July 2017, according to the complaint, “Jacobson recommended, urged, and/or instructed Kalmans and Samotin to use several vendors indirectly in which a private equity firm owned by Penn had a stake, including SKD Knickerbocker, a television advertising firm, Targeted Victory, a digital advertising firm, and PMX Agency, a mailing house. Jacobson also urged Kalmans to omit a Penn-owned entity from a conflicts disclosure made to donors.”

Penn did not comment when asked about the accusation, though he has said he has nothing to do with the operation of No Labels. The Stagwell Group, a private equity firm run by Penn, does own SKDKnickerbocker and owns a small minority stake in Targeted Victory. But Targeted Victory’s Zachary Moffatt said that Applecart suffered under scrutiny, a complaint echoed by others named in the lawsuit.

“Vendors Applecart hired and supervised on the committees' behalf were not placed under contracts,” said Margaret White, the director of the Country Forward super PAC, which was created as part of the PAC strategy. “Refunds of tens of thousands of dollars have already been recovered after we undertook to perform the due diligence that Applecart failed to do.” (Applecart says this is not true, and if it were true these refunds would show up on FEC reports.)

At the heart of the complaint was an effort in Indiana’s 4th District, which opened this year when an incumbent Republican ran for U.S. Senate. The No Labels strategy to elect Steve Braun, seen as the more moderate Republican in what would be a safe seat, was to bring down two more conservative candidates, Jim Baird and Diego Morales. One of the mailers against Baird attacked him for a gas tax increase, saying that it had cost voters “an arm and a leg"-- a line that backfired because Baird, a Vietnam veteran, had lost a limb in the war.

According to Applecart, that blunder was the pretext for a meeting that began unraveling the agreement with No Labels. “Jacobson told Kalmans and Samotin that going forward all strategic decisions relating to the No Labels’ super PAC campaign would be made by Penn, along with SKD Knickerbocker partner Bill Knapp, and No Labels’ co-founder Tom Davis,” the complaint reads.

Davis defended that decision, saying that the team that swept in to look at the Indiana results decided that Applecart had committed “political malpractice" and “needed adult supervision.” Former senator Joe Lieberman, a No Labels co-chair, said that Applecart had looked promising but wilted under inspection.

“They were charging us for things they had not even done,” Lieberman said.

“Applecart was spending 50 percent or more of the overall costs in each race on non-voter contact expenses (much of which was paid directly to themselves),” Good wrote in an email. “Applecart only won four of the races this cycle during their work with us.”

Kalmans and Samotin say the pushback is false-- that Applecart was simply not paid for 1,714 hours of completed work and that a No Labels attorney had signed off on the “arm and a leg” mailer. That debacle, they say, was “a pretext on which to hand over strategic oversight of No Labels’ super PAC campaign to Penn.” The rest may be fought out in court.

Godzilla v Rodan.

More On Joe Lieberman’s Shrill Cry Against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

by Skip Kaltenheuser

Nice to have Joe to kick around again. As Howie recently did

Of the tragic mistakes Al Gore made that bequeathed us W-- trying to cherry-pick counties in a Florida recount attempt, etc…-- none was worse than picking "Holy Joe" for his running mate.

Gore compounded the fiasco by allowing Lieberman to run for re-election as U.S. Senator for Connecticut at the same time he was running for Vice-President on Gore’s ticket.

Never mind Lieberman’s reputation as a water carrier for the pharmaceutical and insurance/finance industries. Did nobody tell Gore the optics of Lieberman's dual candidacy? How could any person devise a stronger message of lack of confidence in the Democratic national ticket and in Al Gore than simultaneously running for Senate re-election so that Lieberman had a fall-back position? No one thought how that lack of faith in the ticket would resonate throughout Florida and the country?



And what if Gore had prevailed in the election-- as the popular vote indicated he did before Justice Kennedy and the Supremes worked their mischief in Bush v. Gore-- and if the Democratic Party had fared well enough to tie the Senate count? A Republican governor would have appointed a Republican to replace Lieberman, throwing the Senate to Republicans. This assumes one can’t be U.S. vice-president and U.S. Senator at the same time, though settling that might have sparked a legal battle. Connecticut’s appointment law is a bit confusing as to how it might apply in this unique scenario, regarding the length of appointed term before an election, but certainly an appointee would have a leg up in a subsequent election. The Democratic Party didn’t fare well enough to gain or tie the Senate, but losing control of the Senate was a feasible scenario and outcome when Lieberman decided to run for Senate re-election. It’s all about Joe.

After the debacle of W’s win, Lieberman was a major supporter for the invasion of Iraq, and he continues to beat drums on Iran.

The Diplomat by Nancy Ohanian

I suspect a submarine motive behind Lieberman’s desperation to discredit Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and return Joe Crowley to Congress. Years ago I frequented guest politician off-record breakfast briefings the press club used to hold. I attended one featuring Senator Lieberman. I’d never heard anyone jump through the hoops kissing the Israeli far right Likud rump more than Joe Lieberman did that morning, as if following an AIPAC checklist, as if someone was reporting back to relevant backers. He was throwing out this love-fest on his own, not in response to reporters' questions. One of the standout courageous positions Bernie Sanders-- held in disdain by Lieberman-- shares with Ocasio-Cortez is a call for decency in the treatment of Palestinians and concern as their rights and prospects rapidly vanish. In addition to their finance sector fan club, one of the positions Lieberman holds in common with Crowley is a shameless kowtow supporting Israel’s far right government. Any appearance of even-handedness to Palestinians will have alarm bells ringing in Lieberman’s head, and jump-start his urgent desire to derail Ocasio-Cortez.



Here’s the send-off The Nation gave Lieberman when he announced his retirement, another good refresher on his legacy.

It was a sad day when a laudable, authentic Republican maverick, Lowell Weicker, was narrowly defeated by Lieberman and by conservatives like William F. Buckley who bankrolled Lieberman’s campaign.

Holden Caulfield had a term of art that seems tailored for Lieberman.

Pick A Side: Joe Lieberman Or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Conservatives want members of Congress to look like the mug on the right, never like the young woman on the left

Connecticut Democratic primary voters basically kicked Joe Lieberman out of the party by denying him the 2006 Democratic nomination for the Senate seat he had held since 1994. He ran on the Connecticut for Lieberman Party that year. He would like to see Joe Crowley, who lost the Democratic renomination bid on June 26, do the same thing. Crowley outspent his progressive opponent Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez $1,410,228 to $30,94, but she worked harder and smarter and beat him 15,897 (57.48%) to 11,761 (42.52%). Ever since her inspiring victory over an avatar of the grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment, the grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment and their media lapdogs have gone on the attack against her and other progressive reformers working to displace other incumbents associated with the grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment. So, no one should be surprised that Joe Lieberman, now a lobbyist working for the ultimate grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment law firm, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, who's best known client is... Don the Con, the illegitimate "president." Lieberman is also the co-chair of the American Internationalism Project, part of the far right American Enterprise Institute.

Lieberman represents a very special kind of bipartisanship-- the opposite of the kind of bipartisanship practiced by legislators like Alan Grayson, Pramila Jayapal, Ted Lieu and Karen Bass (entailing working across the aisle to find issues that both parties can support for the good of their constituents)-- and instead can be defined as selling out your own party's values and principles and embracing those of the other party. That, in fact, sums up Joe Lieberman's entire political career. Example: while actual Democrats were trying to stop the confirmation of anti-education extremist Betsy DeVos of Secretary of Education, it was Lieberman who introduced her to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension committee. A high ranking staffer for one of the committee members-- hint: not Doug Jones (D-AL)-- told me that members were revolted when Lieberman came into their offices and even more revolted when Trump announced he was likely to replace James Comey as FBI Director with Lieberman.

No one was surprised when Lieberman, writing for the conservative Wall Street Journal-- of which Grason quipped, "the Wall Street Journal: you can always tell whom they fear by whom they smear"-- a couple of days ago went on a vicious, McCarthyite attack against Ocasio-Cortez. "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hurts the party, Congress and even America," he wrote. What he meant by "the party" isn't open to the reader's interpretation, although it should be since the Democratic Party now has the most inspiring weapon in politics since Bernie Sanders-- something that petrifies both of the grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment parties. Lieberman, 76 and... tired, defines the grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment as "the mainstream," so he isn't reaching when he writes that "Ocasio-Cortez advocates [policies] so far from the mainstream, her election in November would make it harder for Congress to stop fighting and start fixing problems." He didn't acknowledge the dysfunctional state of Congress today, not the role Joe Crowley-- not to mention his own decades-long role-- has played in that dysfunction.

He then went on to try to make a case for Crowley doing what he did-- running as an independent in the general. "On Election Day, his name will be on the ballot as the endorsed candidate of the Working Families Party. But for Mr. Crowley to have a chance at getting re-elected, he will have to decide if he wants to remain an active candidate. I hope he does." The Working Families Party" has pleaded with him not to further disgrace them by running against Ocasio-Cortez. The heart of Lieberman's OpEd, was his attack on policies that benefit anyone other than the grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment. Keep in mind, Lieberman was one of the most anti-Bernie "Democrats" in the country during the 2016 election cycle. Here he was on Fox News:

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America, whose platform, like hers, is more Socialist than Democratic. Her dreams of new federal spending would bankrupt the country [wrong] or require very large tax increases [wrong], including on the working class [wrong]. Her approach foresees government ownership of many private companies, which would decimate the economy and put millions out of work.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez didn’t speak much about foreign policy during the primary, but when she did, it was from the DSA policy book-- meaning support for socialist governments, even if they are dictatorial and corrupt (Venezuela), opposition to American leadership in the world, even to alleviate humanitarian disasters (Syria), and reflexive criticism of one of America’s great democratic allies (Israel).

She has received the most attention for calling to “Abolish ICE,” Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This makes no sense unless you no longer want any rules on immigration or customs to be enforced. I have not heard anyone say that. Nonetheless, at least three credible candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination rushed to endorse Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s position.

Republicans are calling Ms. Ocasio-Cortez the “new face” of the Democratic Party. That’s why Nancy Pelosi has tried to put distance between Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and House Democrats. “They made a choice in one district,” Mrs. Pelosi said. “It is not to be viewed as something that stands for anything else.” She knows that if Democrats are to regain a majority, it will be by winning swing districts with sensible, mainstream candidates. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is making that task harder across America.

Joe Crowley’s re-election would be evidence that Democrats are capable of governing again. His voting record shows that Mr. Crowley is a progressive [laughably wrong]. I know him as a bridge builder and problem solver, which is exactly what Congress needs more of in both parties.

Crowley has refused to remove his name from the Working Families Party ballot slot, despite the Working Families Party asking him to. We asked some of the Blue America-endorsed candidates for their perspectives on this. First to respond was Tom Guild who is running on very similar all-American, working family issues that Ocasio ran on-- in Oklahoma City. They work as well among voters there than they work in the Bronx and Queens. "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a breath of fresh air," he told me. "She prevailed against big money and is not responsible for the problems that others have created-- paralysis, placing our democracy at risk by coveting and hoarding big donor money, and selling out working people and the middle class by doing the bidding of the modern moneychangers in the American political temple. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Crowley is the same old, same old and a charter member of the DC Swamp. Progressive change will make things better for people who are struggling to survive and throw the corrupt moneychangers out of the temple. Alexandria beat the tired and failed political establishment playing by their rules, and may be able (with a little help from her friends) to shake up Washington and get the country moving in a positive direction. Experience makes it crystal clear that for many years Lieberman and Crowley made a functioning national government dysfunctional. Why would we want to go back to that future?

Kansas Democrat James Thompson made an addition after the post was completed: "My first thought is who cares what Lieberman thinks? He is a corporate crony owned by the establishment in both parties. If Ocasio is the breath of fresh air then Lieberman is the dying breath of a decaying establishment that can’t see past its next Corporate PAC endorsement." And then there's this nice video, nice message from the Sanders Institute. I bet you can guess why we're running it here, right?

After Pompeo Is Confirmed We'll Be Hearing Lots About "Bloody Gina"

I'm really looking forward to former Democrat Joe Lieberman's OpEd on why Democrats need to confirm Torture Princess Gina Haspell. He hasn't published it yet, just one called Senate should fulfill constitutional duty, confirm Mike Pompeo. Pompeo has to move on the State before Haspell cn be voted on for his old job at the CIA. Lieberman hectored Democratic senators that the pro-Pompeo and anti-Pompeo votes are "breaking along partisan lines which is contrary to precedent for this important position and bad for our country because it sends a message of internal division to our allies and adversaries around the world." But he doesn't lecture the Republicans about serving the country by rejecting him-- only the Democrats about confirming him. "Pompeo’s academic and professional credentials," he insists, "are stellar. He graduated first in his class from West Point, and served as a U.S. Army cavalry officer. Later, he graduated from Harvard Law School, as an editor at the Harvard Law Review. Afterwards, he was successful in business, co-forming an aerospace company and serving as president of an oilfield equipment company. During Mike Pompeo’s three terms in the House of Representatives, he became known as a thoughtful voice on national security, serving on the House Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Intelligence Subcommittee on the CIA. While in the House, he focused on homeland security and the War on Terror, sponsoring numerous bills to contain Iranian aggression. Nothing that indicates he would be a good Secretary of State.

For the last 15 months, Pompeo has served as director of the CIA. His tenure there has been considered broadly successful, including efforts to pare bureaucracy and squeeze North Korea’s supply routes. Pompeo delivered President Trump’s daily intelligence briefings, giving him insight about emerging security threats and how the president comprehends them. These briefings earned him the trust of the president, crucial to the success of any cabinet member. This president’s confidence in Pompeo is such that he dispatched Pompeo to handle the sensitive portfolio of meeting with North Korean despot Kim Jong Un earlier this month.

Given his strong background, Pompeo is certainly qualified to be secretary of State. His narrow path to confirmation in the Senate isn’t a reflection on his qualifications; instead, it reflects our country’s growing political polarization.

No-one doubts that had Democrats not driven Lieberman out of the Senate, he would be joining DINOs Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp in supporting the nomination. He insists that "the Advise and Consent clause has become increasingly used in these hyper-partisan times as another way for senators to prove their conservative or liberal bona fides to their political bases. This risks turning every nomination into an exercise in ideological posturing. It is time to time to return to the traditional understanding of 'advise and consent,' putting the national interest above partisanship-- and judging simply if the candidate can do the job. Director Pompeo has shown he can. He deserves confirmation."

So what about Gina? Did he read her college record from the University of Kentucky? How about her record as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency? There must be a reason that more than 100 retired admirals and generals are raising serious concerns about her.

I'd trust former CIA officer and torture whistleblower John Kiriakou, who personally knew her, far more than Lieberman. He told Amy Goodman at Democracy Now! that Haspel "tortured Just for the Sake of Torture." Perfect for Trump and his budding fascist state! And percent for Team Bolton! And Lieberman. What about Manchin and Heitkamp on this one?

He's not a big fan of Pompeo either but feels we could have done worse with that nomination "Gina Haspel, however, is a problem, a big problem. I’ve been talking about Gina Haspel for more than a year. She was a dreadful choice to be the deputy director. She’s a worse choice to be the director. I think it’s wonderful that there’s a possibility of a woman heading the CIA, but there are 50 different women who are qualified to lead the CIA. It shouldn’t be Gina Haspel... We did call her Bloody Gina. Gina was always very quick and very willing to use force. You know, there was a group of officers in the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, when I was serving there, who I hate to even make the accusation out loud, but I’m going to say it: who enjoyed using force. Yeah, everybody knew that torture didn’t work. That’s not even the issue. Lots of different things work. Was it moral, and was it ethical, and was it legal? I think the answers to those questions are very clearly no. But Gina and people like Gina did it, I think, because they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of torture, not for the sake of gathering information."

[A] black site is a site that’s more or less off the books, meaning it doesn’t officially exist. It exists, but nobody is supposed to know that it exists. And in many cases, that includes the congressional oversight committees. So, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the CIA set up such black sites all around the world, with the idea being that if we captured someone from al-Qaeda or kidnapped someone from al-Qaeda, we could send him to one of these black sites, interrogate him without having to worry about the law, about ethics or morality or the FBI breathing down their backs. They could do whatever they wanted. And that’s how this torture program spiraled out of control. There were people who were murdered in the course of their interrogations.

Democrats Protect Social Security, Right? Well... Not THESE Democrats

A small gaggle of greed-obsessed billionaires and multimillionaires are financing another of their endless attempts to wreck the most successful and beloved social safety net programs in history, Social Security. Greed-obsessed billionaires and multimillionaires have always hated Social Security and even tried fomenting a coup d'état against Franklin Roosevelt for signing it into law. Of course, all the plotters were conservatives, including Irénée du Pont, J.P. Morgan and, of course, Nazi sympathizer Prescott Bush. Today, Republicans are still denigrating the government and still trying to destroy Social Security-- although now they approach it differently. Now they say they have to make some adjustments to "save it." Those adjustments inevitably mean raising the retirement age so that more people die before they can collect on what they've put in and on cutting benefits to the elderly. The conservative dream is to "privatize" it, meaning turn it over to the tender embrace of the Wall Street banksters, heirs to the class of criminals who tried hiring a general to lead a military move against FDR.

Instead of coups though, today we have massive brain-washing exercises through Fox News and Hate Talk Radio, underpinned by a network of billionaire-financed think-tanks. One of the worst of the right-wing think-tanks, No Labels," just roused two wealthy old white men out of retirement to give wrecking Social Security another try. I'm sure anyone who's been reading DWT for any length of time remembers the odious Joe Lieberman and billionaire Jon Huntsman, heir to a family of Mormon fanatics who became rich manufacturing one of earth's most devastating pollutants, polystyrene, the biggest and most toxic component of plastic garbage in the ocean. Every cent of the Huntsman fortune should be seized by the government and used to clean up the existential worldwide mess the family created. Instead, Huntsman has teamed up Lieberman to make poor people's lives unbearable in old age.

Wall Street banksters fund No Labels to destroy Social Security, Medicare and other social services and they have decided on Lieberman and Huntsman as their new frontmen. Reactionary politics is the name of their game and the two of them have been spotted recently lurking around Capitol Hill, shopping their ideas to lawmakers-- primarily Republicans and New Dems-- and to their natural allies on K Street, the corporate lobbyists. The organization founded by Eric Kingson, Social Security Works is sounding the alarm and demanding that Lieberman and Huntsman stand down. Social Security Works points out that that in the midst of a $7.7 trillion retirement security crisis and with two-thirds of retirees relying on Social Security for the majority of their income, now is not the time to be cutting Americans' hard earned benefits. Instead, as Kingson, a congressional candidate in Syracuse, and other progressives explain as part of their campaigns, we should be expanding Social Security benefits for millions of Americans. Social Security Works:

The American people are united in our support of protecting and expanding Social Security-- the most successful social insurance program in our country's history. And right now, a majority of Democrats in Congress support our efforts. We cannot allow Lieberman and Huntsman to successfully flip Congressional Democrats-- and worse yet, the next president-- on the future of Social Security.

All we need in order to strengthen Social Security is to finally ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. Right now, individuals pay into Social Security on the first $118,500 of their income. But if wealthier individuals pay in on ALL of their income, we will be able to expand the benefits of millions of Americans and have enough left to extend the lifespan of the Social Security trust fund.

No one likes to admit in public-- especially not right before an election-- that they want to cut Social Security and Medicare. But on February 6, 2013, Oregon Blue Dog Kurt Schrader offered an amendment seeking to insert the anti-Social Security provisions of Simpson-Bowles into another bill. Schrader's House Amendment 19 to HR 444 failed 75-348. But 54 Democrats, primarily New Dems and Blue Dogs (the Hillary wing) voted for it. Thankfully, many are no longer in Congress, but these are some of the Democrats who voted for a death sentence for Social Security that day:

• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
• Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL)
• Gerry Connolly (New Dem-VA)
• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Joe Crowley (New Dem-NY)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Susan Davis (New Dem-CA)

• John Delaney (New Dem-MD)
• Denny Heck (New Dem-WA)
• Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)
• Steny Hoyer (MD)
• Derek Kilmer (New Dem-WA)
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)
• Rick Larsen (New Dem-WA)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Loretta Sanchez (Blue Dog-CA)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)
• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)
• Adam Smith (New Dem-WA)
• Chris Van Hollen (MD)
• Filemon Vela (New Dem-TX)

New Dems Joe Garcia (FL) and Pete Gallego (TX) both voted for it as well and were subsequently defeated for reelect. I mention these two scumbags because both are trying to worm their way back into Congress this year. This would be an especially good year to defeat Kurt Schrader, who has a strong progressive opponent, Dave McTeague. McTeague and all the progressives on this list want to expand, not cut, Social Security:

Q: How can you tell when "Holy Joe" Lieberman is lying? A: His lips are moving.

Yes, it's b-a-a-c-k!

-- from today's WaPo Monday "Opinions" e-mail

by Ken

Okay, it's an ancient joke, the one I've recycled above. But tell me it doesn't apply exactly to former CT Sen. "Holy Joe" Lieberman, aka "The Holiest Joe of Them All."

Is it a moon phase or what? 'Cause we've really got the right-wing scum-loons pouring out of the woodwork. For how many days now have we had to listen to that lying scumbag-thug Rudy Giuliani blithering psychotically about President Obama? And now here, telling the 23 members of the House officially disaffected by the scheme to turn a joint session of Congress into a campaign rally for the Israeli Likud Bund -- and any other suckerable saps who'll listen -- that they should just forget about the circmstances of this appalling pile of political skulduggery cooked up in cahoots by the Israeli and U.S. Far Right, to rise above politics and listen politely to the lying scumbag-thug who occupies the post of prime minister of Israel.

Since, His Holiness says in a Washington Post op-ed, "Hear out Israel's leader," "it is absolutely clear" that House Speaker "Sunny John" Boehner "will neither postpone nor rescind his invitation, the prime minister will be there to speak." Apparently the 23 House Democrats are supposed to shut the fuck up and listen to Holy Joe, but there are no words for Sunny John, who's principally responsible for this goddamn mess to begin with. Welcome to HolyJoeWorld.

Now what Holy Joe knows about foreign affairs would fill . . . well, no container that I know of -- unless we count lies and imbecilities, and for once, just this once, I say we don't. No, all our Joe knows is that an inviolable tenet of U.S. foreign policy must always be that we bow down and kiss the smelly toes of the vilest fascists in Israel.

Nevertheless, in the interest of fairness (and what are we here if not fair?), here are the reasons why His Holiness thinks those grumpy congressmembers should show up on March 3 and listen politely to Prime Minister Bib's prime-ministerial crock:

● Go because this is about determining how best to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons and not just another Washington test of partisan and political loyalty.

● Go because — regardless of what you think of the leaders involved or their actions in this case — you are a strong supporter of America’s alliance with Israel, and you don’t want it to become a partisan matter.

● Go because you know that the Constitution gives you, as a member of Congress, the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations,” “define and punish . . . offenses against the law of nations,” “declare war,” “raise and support armies” and “provide and maintain a Navy,” and Netanyahu might say some things that will inform your exercise of those great powers.

● Go because you know that Israel is one of our closest and most steadfast allies and you feel a responsibility to listen to its leader speak about developments that he believes could threaten the safety, independence and even existence of his country, as well as that of our closest allies in the Arab world.

● Go because you worry that it is not just the security of Israel and the Arab nations but the security of the United States that will be threatened if a bad agreement is made with Iran that enables it to build nuclear weapons it could put on its increasingly capable long-range missiles.

● Go because you are concerned about nuclear weapons proliferation and believe that a faulty deal with Iran will not only put it on the road to becoming a nuclear power but will also lead some of Iran’s Arab neighbors to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

It's not that what happens with Iran is of no consequence to us as well as Israel, but that that inveterate dirty-toe-licking Holy Joe and his political brethren know and understand less about the situation than possibly any people on the planet.


HOW CONGRESS COULD RESPOND TO
AN "ILL-OMENED OWL" LIKE HOLY JOE

Now Holy Joe could hardly qualify more exactly as an "ill-omened owl," and if the son of a bitch insists on trying to spoil our "gay gambado," one obvious solution Congress might try is this trick employed in the Act I finale of Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado, as the frightful old frump Katisha tries in vain to reveal to the assembled Japanese town of Titipu the true identity of the fellow they know as the minstrel Nanki-Poo, who it seems is the son of their . . . well, we never do find out! (Hmm, what rhymes with "bravado," "tornado," and "gambado"?)

KATISHA: I'll tear the mask off your disguising!
NANKI-POO [aside]: Now comes the blow!
KATISHA: Prepare yourself for news surprising!
NANKI-POO [aside]: How foil my foe?
KATISHA: No minstrel he, despite bravado!
YUM-YUM [aside, struck by an idea]: Ha ha! I know!
KATISHA: He is the son of your --
TOWNSFOLK [interrupting]: O ni! bikkuri shakkurito!
KATISHA: In vain you interrupt with this tornado!
He is the only son of your --
TOWNSFOLK [interrupting]: O ni! bikkuri shakkurito!
KATISHA: I'll spoil --
TOWNSFOLK [interrupting]: O ni! bikkuri shakkurito!
KATISHA: . . . your gay gambado!
He is the son --
TOWNSFOLK [interrupting]: O ni! bikkuri shakkurito!
KATISHA: . . . of your --
TOWNSFOLK [interrupting]: O ni! bikkuri shakkurito!
KATISHA: . . . the son of your --
TOWNSFOLK [interrupting]: O ni! bikkuri shakkurito!
Oya, oya!
KATISHA: Ye torrents roar!
Ye tempests howl!
Your wrath outpour
with angry growl!
Do ye your worst,
my vengeance call
shall rise triumphant over all!
TOWNSFOLK: We'll hear no more,
ill-omened owl!
To joy we soar,
despite your scowl!
The echoes of our festival
shall rise triumphant over all!
KATISHA: Prepare for woe,
ye haughty lords!
At once I go
Mikado-wards!
TOWNSFOLK: Away you go!
Collect your hordes!
Proclaim your woe
in dismal chords!

-- from the Act I finale of Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado

Ann Drummond-Grant (c), Katisha; Thomas Round (t), Nanki-Poo; Jean Hindmarsh (s), Yum-Yum; D'Oyly Carte Opera Chorus, New Symphony Orchestra of London, Isidore Godfrey, cond. Decca, recorded October 1957

The only thing is that Katisha, monstrous as she is, is made way more sympathetic in Arthur Sullivan's music, as this scene plays out, than any power known to man could make Holy Joe. (I'm pretty sure we've already heard this great scene whole, but I couldn't quickly find a link. If anybody cares, I'll pursue it.)

#

Joe Lieberman Smells Blood

When Lieberman finally recognized Connecticut's electoral calculus and retired last year, I was tempted to throw away my collection of Lieberman art. But something told me not to, that Lieberman still wasn't through polluting America's public spaces. And, sure enough, the sleazy K Street lobbyist for Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman, who has always put the demands of Israel's Likud extremists ahead of America's own interests, and is now part of the right-wing think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, was spouting his unique, dark vision of humanity for Fox viewers yesterday.

Fox News Sunday trotted Lieberman out to attack President Obama for their appreciative audience. He said he was "shocked and disappointed" the president was going to Congress for approval for military action against Syria. Lieberman has long gone the way of authoritarianism and spent his last decades of public service as an anti-democracy zealot.

“Notwithstanding what I said a few moments ago about how shocked and disappointed I was by the president's decision yesterday to go to Congress for authorization-- because I think he has the authority now to do that and that's exactly what the commander in chief is supposed to do-- the worst of all ends to this whole saga would be for Congress not to give the president authority to act. It would be catastrophic.

He is threatening to publicly lobby his former colleagues-- which is illegal for another year-- and he seems to cross in and out of consciousness that he is no longer a Member of Congress himself. "I appeal," he babbled, "to my fellow Members of Congress to give the president the authority that he's asked for now." He feels sure he can help deliver his fellow Stooges, McCain and Graham.

Lieberman was one of the 5 dozen right-wing self-described "foreign policy experts" who signed a letter to President Obama last week demanding he bomb he hell out of Syria immediately. Lieberman associated himself with warmongers and, in some cases war criminals, who are never right about anything, from Karl Rove, Elliott Abrams, Bill Kristol, Randy Scheunemann, Norm Coleman, Doug Feith and to outright clowns like Paul Bremer, Tim Pawlenty, Jamie Kirchick and... Max Boot! Bibi Netanyahu himself couldn't have done a better job:

Moreover, the United States and other willing nations should consider direct military strikes against the pillars of the Assad regime. The objectives should be not only to ensure that Assad’s chemical weapons no longer threaten America, our allies in the region or the Syrian people, but also to deter or destroy the Assad regime’s airpower and other conventional military means of committing atrocities against civilian non-combatants. At the same time, the United States should accelerate efforts to vet, train, and arm moderate elements of Syria’s armed opposition, with the goal of empowering them to prevail against both the Assad regime and the growing presence of Al Qaeda-affiliated and other extremist rebel factions in the country.

Left unanswered, the Assad regime’s mounting attacks with chemical weapons will show the world that America’s red lines are only empty threats. It is a dangerous and destabilizing message that will surely come to haunt us-- one that will certainly embolden Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons capability despite your repeated warnings that doing so is unacceptable. It is therefore time for the United States to take meaningful and decisive actions to stem the Assad regime’s relentless aggression, and help shape and influence the foundations for the post-Assad Syria that you have said is inevitable.

Holy Joe Lieberman finds the perfect vehicle for his accumulated, er, talents

Isn't it about time we had some phony bipartisan foreign policy?

by Ken

What's most exciting about this headline reproduced from a press release from the American Enterprise Institute?



Is it the thrilling news itself? (Stop the presses!)

Is it the thrill-inducing tension of the head itself? (Can't you just tell they've got a pile-up of J-school grads there at AEI?)

No, what I like best is the pretense that what's nothing more than a boilerplate press release is in fact a think piece by former AZ Sen. Jon Kyl. Why, there's even a phony-baloney "About the Author" photo:

Wouldn't you buy used foreign-policy "ideas" from this man?

And here's what Senator Jon, er, didn't write:

Washington, DC (March 11, 2013) – American Enterprise Institute (AEI) president Arthur Brooks announced today that former Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman will join AEI Visiting Fellow Jon Kyl as co-chair of the American Internationalism Project, an important new effort from AEI's Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies. The Project's focus will be to rebuild and reshape a bipartisan consensus around American global leadership and engagement.

"Senator Joseph Lieberman’s knowledge, deep commitment and vision for American greatness is all too rare in Washington," said AEI president Arthur C. Brooks. "The American Internationalism Project, under the leadership of Senator Lieberman and Senator Jon Kyl, is critical to opening a discussion about the challenges facing America in the coming decades--and strategizing about how to meet them."

"Opinion leaders in both political parties seem much less willing to support US involvement around the world and the military requirements of an engaged United States," said Kyl. "This project will help us persuasively make the case for such a role and concomitant military strength to keep the United States positioned to protect our vital interests."

"There is an urgent need to rebuild a bipartisan -- indeed non-political -- consensus for American diplomatic, economic, and military leadership in the world," said Lieberman. "That's why I am grateful to AEI for initiating and sponsoring this project and why I look forward to leading it with my friend Jon Kyl."

The world is as complex and dangerous as it has been in many decades, but fiscal constraints, weariness with war and isolationism are eroding the American will to lead. The American Internationalism Project will - through a series of working groups, reports and conferences - work to renew the foundations of American internationalism and the commitment to political and economic freedom that has been the hallmark of U.S. leadership for more than half a century.

For additional information on the American Internationalism Project or other media inquiries please contact AEI Media Services at mediaservices@aei.org or 202-862-5829

TO BE SERIOUS FOR A MOMENT . . .

What kind of world would this be if the establishment didn't take care of its own? If, after a political lifetime's worth of dishonorable service, a past-his-prime servant couldn't count on finding a cushy ass-parking place amidst the exploded pantheon of government sinecures and butt-cushioning NGOs?

For "Holy Joe" Lieberman, the far-right-wing zealot who made such a notable career pretending to be a merely-near-right-wing avatar of "nonpartisanship," where better to land than in the bosom of the merely-moderately-extremist think tank the American Enterprise Institute? Oh, they're by and large pretty far right at AEI. They just don't let it get in the way of business.

The new AEI gig for Holy Joe is, well, everything we could hope for. It combines his familiar expertise at foreign policy (cf. His Holiness on Iraq) and his renowned fluency with bipartisanship (cf. His Holiness as a lap-stooge of the Senate Republicans). Probably Joe and his pal Jon won't actually have "tip jars" on their sidewalk foreign-policy stand, but when you're dealing with AEI folk, everyone knows where to deposit the shekels. And for the Lieberman share, the lovely Hadassah will as usual be manning the back seat of the get-away vehicle.

#

By the new "Susan Rice standard," no Republican should ever be confirmable again for any post that doesn't lead to a lethal injection

The not-future and the incumbent secretary of state

by Ken

Sometimes I wonder what it must be like to see the world through Village eyes. Like today we have the Washington Post's Dana Milbank weeping uncontrollably over "Joe Lieberman's sad send-off" -- not, as one might assume, because the world's largest pile of pus finally dragged his loathsome carcass out of a Senate chamber to which, even in its current degraded state, he became a disgrace.

No, Dana weeps because Holy Joe, self-made hypocrite and crook, "was drummed out of his party because of his willingness to embrace Republicans (he received a kiss from George W. Bush after a State of the Union address)." Makes you wonder where our Dana has been all the time His Holiness was soiling himself in the Senate. (Oh wait, he was in the Post newsroom covering it all. Hmm.)

So let's take a peek at the humiliating but clearly necessary withdrawal of Susan Rice from consideration to be secretary of state -- because of implacable opposition from a band of GOP poopyheads whose cumulative reasoning power is roughly zero -- as seen through the eyes of Village stooge Chris Cillizza ("What Susan Rice's withdrawal means"):

[T]he writing had been on the wall regarding the difficulty of a Rice nomination for weeks. Fair or not, Republicans had seized on Rice as the face of the September attacks in Benghazi that left four diplomats including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya dead.

That opposition included some of the usual suspects -- Arizona Sen. John McCain, for example -- but also people like Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker. Combine that broad spectrum of Republican opposition to her nomination with the fact that there were a number of Senate Democrats -- many of whom are up for reelection in 2014 in swing and Republican-leaning states -- that didn't want to have to vote on someone as controversial as Rice and it had become clear that her nomination would be dead on arrival.

Did you get that? "People like Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker"? Aren't people like that generally to be found in cages in science laboratories along with the other primate test subjects? Suzie Q is one of the gutless wimps who made the reign of terror of the last GOP-controlled Congress possible, and Bullet-Brain Bob, well, I have to assume that the people of Tennessee got together and decided that what they really needed to represent them in the U.S. Senate was a barrelful of doggie poop, but when constitutional-eligibility issues were raised (could they show that the doggie poop in question was at least 30 years old?), they decided that the Bullet Brainer was as close as they could get to doggie poopitude in constitutionally acceptable form.

Just as a reminder, there is no substance to the Republican complaints about Ambassador Rice. It really doesn't even have anything to do with Libya, about which "people like that" don't give a stinking fart. It's just a matter of their psychotic savagery and imbecility, a lashing out at people their crabbed self-loathing selves recognize as their superiors. (Which isn't saying much. If they were in that primate lab, they would have reason to feel just as inferior mentally to their cagemates.)

When last we left the subject of the bruited Rice nomination last week, WaPo right-wing columnist Kathleen Parker was puncturing the notion that there was reasoned opposition to it:

[T]he opposition's arguments are weak, chief among them that Rice isn't qualified. This from [Sen. John] McCain, whose vetting history includes about 80 minutes of conversation with Sarah Palin before selecting her as his running mate in 2008. . . .

[T]houghtful Republicans might reconsider the image of white men ganging up on a highly qualified black woman as they ponder the reasons for their collapsing tent. The road to redemption ain't thataway.

Now the business about Rice's alleged closeness to the Rwandan thug is something I might want to know more about, but can anyone take seriously the notion that Chris C's "people like that" could possibly give a damn? These are people who couldn't find Rwanda on a map if their lives depended on it. People who have almost certainly never given Rwanda a thought in their useless lives.

And when it comes to buddying up to thugs, is their any trait more deeply imprinted on slug-worshipping Republican souls than making nicey-nice with the rich and powerful? Their lives are veritable wet dreams of power-fucking.

When it comes to foreign-policy fibbing, in what universe do "people like that" dare open their corrupt maws? I mean, the very people who sat cheering during the eight-year criminal rampage of the Bush regime, whose every word on foreign policy was an egregious, blatant whopper. Again, people who couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it. And those lose had incalculable world-serious consequences.

I can't resist requoting something I quoted just the other day, from HuffPost's Dan Froomkin's chinwag with conservative Republican strategists Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein.

[A]ccording to longtime political observers Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, campaign coverage in 2012 was a particularly calamitous failure, almost entirely missing the single biggest story of the race: Namely, the radical right-wing, off-the-rails lurch of the Republican Party, both in terms of its agenda and its relationship to the truth.

Mann and Ornstein are two longtime centrist Washington fixtures who earlier this year dramatically rejected the strictures of false equivalency that bind so much of the capital's media elite and publicly concluded that GOP leaders have become "ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

The 2012 campaign further proved their point, they both said in recent interviews. It also exposed how fabulists and liars can exploit the elite media's fear of being seen as taking sides.

"The mainstream press really has such a difficult time trying to cope with asymmetry between the two parties' agendas and connections to facts and truth," said Mann, who has spent nearly three decades as a congressional scholar at the centrist Brookings Institution.

"I saw some journalists struggling to avoid the trap of balance and I knew they were struggling with it -- and with their editors," said Mann. "But in general, I think overall it was a pretty disappointing performance."

"I can't recall a campaign where I've seen more lying going on -- and it wasn't symmetric," said Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who's been tracking Congress with Mann since 1978. Democrats were hardly innocent, he said, "but it seemed pretty clear to me that the Republican campaign was just far more over the top." . . .

[The "publicly concluded" link, by the way, is to an op-ed piece that Mann and Ornstein penned for the Washington Post last April, "Let's just say it: The Republicans are the problem."

There was one more thing I meant to mention from Dan Froomkin's piece. Mann and Ornstein have become virtual pariahs among their former Village cronies.

It's hard to exaggerate just how popular Mann and Ornstein were with the press before their apostasy. They were quite possibly the two most quotable men in Washington. They were the media cocktail party circuit's most reliable walking talking points.

And now they are virtual pariahs.

"It's awkward. I can no longer be a source in a news story in the Wall Street Journal or the Times or the Post because people now think I've made the case for the Democrats and therefore I'll have to be balanced with a Republican," Mann said.

Neither Mann nor Ornstein have been guests on any of the main Sunday public affairs shows since their book came out. Nor has anyone else on those shows talked about the concerns they raised.

Ornstein is particularly infuriated that none of the supposed reader advocates at major newspapers have raised the issues they brought up. "What the fuck is an ombudsman doing if he's not writing about this?" he asked.

Since Mann and Ornstein are both singularly articulate gentlemen, they had more to say, but I think you get the general idea. The kinds of things they've been caught saying in public can't be said by proper Republicans of either party.

It takes a Village to cover its own butts.

#

Holy smoke, the new Holy Joe wear's women's clothes! (No, not Lindsey G, silly!) Oh wait, it's a woman!

Why, it's a dead ringer for "His Holiness"!

"[Sen. John "Young Johnny McCranky"] McCain called her 'very serious' and 'a very quick study.' He said he has come to believe Ayotte could be a leader in the mold of Margaret Chase Smith, the trailblazing Maine Republican who served four terms in the Senate. 'I see her kind of in that tradition -- working hard and being involved in national security issues,' he said."

-- from "Sen. Ayotte offers GOP an influential new voice,"
by the Washington Post's Rosalind S. Helderman

by Ken

Oho, so there's a new Holy Joe in town! Or rather in the Village. A replacement stooge for the trio broken up by the way-overdue retirement from the Senate of that master crook and megacorporate stooge Holy Joe "The Jomentum Man" Lieberman. The Washington Post's Rosalind S. Helderman reports ("Sen. Ayotte offers GOP an influential new voice") that the Holy Joe slot in the foreign-policy troglodyte troika has been filled by NH Sen. Kelly Ayotte.

Ayotte's partnership with [AZ Sen. John] McCain and [SC Sen. Lindsey] Graham on Benghazi began shortly after the attack, which is now understood to have been an al-Qaeda effort to kill Americans. Ambassador J. Christopher Stephens and three others died in the attack.

Ayotte's role in the trio has been filled in the past by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), the former Democrat who is retiring from the Senate in January. The three of them were cheekily dubbed the "three amigos" on the Hill, and over the years, they repeatedly joined together to push for a strong U.S. interventionist role in the world.

"I don't even purport to try to replace him," Ayotte said of Lieberman. But she said she shares with Graham and McCain a view of the U.S. role in the world that makes for a natural partnership. On Thursday, the Senate adopted an amendment sponsored by Ayotte to ban the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States on a bipartisan vote, 54 to 41.

"I believe we should be a leader in standing up for human rights around the world," she said. "I also believe it's important for our military to remain strong and to be the strongest in the world, so that we can remain safe and so that the world can remain a safer place.

"That's my overall view. And I believe that they [Graham and McCain] believe in a strong role for America in the world."

Yessir, what this country needs is more "leaders" like this -- lying thugs and imbeciles preaching hot-botton demagoguery to a public that has trained to think with its fat butt.

As if Kelly Ayotte has any better idea than arch-doodyheads Young Johnny McCranky and "Sweet Lindsey" Graham what would make either America or its role in the world "strong." These are, after all, the people whose idea of "strength" is gorillalike bullying that makes us objects of contempt and hatred everywhere . . . well, everywhere where there are people. All the while throwing billions of dollars down sinkholes like Iraq and Afghanistan with the effect, if not in fact the intention, of making them even more hellish places to live than they were before our pathological mental, physical, and moral weakness led us to try to throw our weight around like the most despised playground bully.

It's hard to know whether the wreckage of the U.S. economy was an intended result or merely a happy byproduct for the pols who give their lives in service to the war-profiteering oligarchy that arranges things so that it always gorges on other people's financial misfortunes. My guess is that some of those stooges are willingly paid-off hired help of the 1% while others are simply too stupid to understand how they're being used. I'm not sure it matters a whole lot which of them are which.

Apparently the GOP has suddenly found itself short of Senate voices that can credibly argue for further ruination of the U.S. economy in favor of adventurism designed to widen and harden animosity to the U.S. around the globe. Is it possible that party "thinkers" realize how ridiculous and hateful its standard spokescreeps have become even to the docile public it has so strenuously miseducated into gibbering idiots?

This week, Ayotte was everywhere expressing concern at the possibility that Rice could be nominated to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state. Those concerns were not being taken lightly as Ayotte has emerged as a newly influential voice in a party that does not have many like hers and desperately needs them.

"She has the potential to be an important voice in the Republican Party," said Tom Rath, a top adviser to Mitt Romney who has deep roots in New Hampshire and has known Ayotte her entire professional life.

One sign of Ayotte's new stature is that when the embattled Rice decided to try to mend fences with critical lawmakers, Ayotte was included in the first and most important meeting.

At 44, Ayotte is a fresh face in a party that has lagged behind in advancing women into its most powerful positions and in making a convincing case to many female voters. Ayotte (pronounced AY-aht) infuses new blood into the GOP national security brain trust in the Senate led by Graham and McCain.

Oh, swell! (That's presumably a typo in the last sentence, which surely must have meant to refer to "the GOP national security brainless trust in the Senate led by Graham and McCain.")

What's important, though, apart from making sure the gravy train for our 1% war profiteers, is making sure that any sane foreign-policy initiatives are immediately drowned out by the brainless trust's patented imbecility.

Senator Kelly may in fact be a holier Holy Joe than His Holiness himself. As reporter Helderman notes: "Lieberman has parted ways with his longtime friends on Rice, indicating last week that he does not think the Benghazi incident should disqualify her from serving as secretary of state." But the Right still hasn't come up with any better ideas, it seems, that to obstruct and obfuscate. If the president's "fer it," they're "agin."

His Holiness himself seems impressed, but not unreservedly so.

"If she's going to replace me, they've found somebody obviously more brilliant and more beautiful," Lieberman said. He praised Ayotte and another GOP first-term senator, Florida's Marco Rubio, for sharing his "pro-democracy, pro-freedom, keep America strong in the world" principles.

But he counseled that McCain, Graham and Ayotte will need to pull in a Democrat to join their group if their work is to continue to carry weight in the next Congress.

I don't know. The McCranky-Jomentum-Graham troika did OK without a Democrat. Or maybe our Joe means that they need a pretend Democrat. Well, there's no shortage of those, and I'm confident that McCranky and Lindsey know where to find them. Unless the current GOP thinking following the November elections is that excessive bipartisanship caused those unfortunate results.

Speaking of which, one question for Young Johnny McCranky, referencing the quote at the top of this post, in which he suggests that he sees her as "kind of" in the tradition of onetime Maine Republican Sen. Margaret Chase Smith, "working hard and being involved in national security issues." Young Johnny doesn't really think his party would tolerate Senator Smith today, does he? Look how the party beat down her fellow Mainer retiring Sen. Olympia Snowe, who had about a thousandth of Smith's courage. So far what her putative new Margaret Chase Smith has demonstrated is her willingness, nay eagerness, to pander for the party, the Party of No.

#

Joe Lieberman? (JOE LIEBERMAN?) We're supposed to feel bad because no pols want to play with the goniff* anymore?

Nostalgic for Joe? C'mon, gimme a break.

"Many commenters feel [Washington Post columnist Michael] Gerson is missing the Big Picture [in his column today, "Joe Lieberman, party of one"]. The Big Picture being that Lieberman is universally loathed and/or disrespected, and for valid reason."

-- Rachel Manteuffel, in a PostPartisan post this afternoon,
"PostScript: Why Joe Lieberman is a party of one"

by Ken

Oh no you don't, Michael Gerson. You think you can devote that entire Washington Post column to Joe Lieberman ("party of one"; I'll be damned if I provide a link -- that would only have the effect of encouraging him) to smooching on the limp dick of that giant barnicle Holy Joe Lieberman, making out that His Holiness is an above-reproach victim of his saintlike superior wisdom and "moderation" (sorry, I have to put "moderation" in quotes when it comes to an extremist like His Holiness) rather than a loathsome radical whore and rotting cesspool of ignorance and corruption, and actually get me to read it.

Well, no sale, buster! As far as I'm concerned, Mikey, you and the Jomentum Man can get yourselves a room and do whatever it is you feel you must in the privacy thereof. I don't even want to think about it. I especially don't want to think about that.

Somehow, even though Holy Joe has been pretty much "out of sight, out of mind" ever since he announced that even he could see there was no point in his seeking reelection again, it feels right to be writing about the goniff* so soon after Howie's post "DC Politicians All Want To Be The King Of K Street -- Yes, Even So-Called Democrats." What, after all, is His Holiness if not the Creature from the K Street Lagoon?

*goniff -- (Yiddish) a thief or dishonest person or scoundrel (often used as a general term of abuse); offender, wrongdoer -- a person who transgresses moral or civil law

-- The Free Dictionary by Farlex

On the plus side, the Gerson column inspired the PostPartison "Postscript" post by Rachel Manteuffel from which I quoted above. It begins:

Michael Gerson has elected to spend this strange working day between the two party conventions celebrating one guy who's unwelcome at both: Independent Senator Joe Lieberman (Conn.), who has at times aligned himself with both major parties but now succeeds in inhabiting, Gerson says, his own party of one.

Lieberman, who attended the 2000 Democratic convention as the VP nominee and the 2008 Republican convention as a supporter of McCain-Palin, is left out, Gerson says, because a mega-polarized Congress no longer tolerates legislators who cross party lines, no matter what the issue. The in-betweeners used to have enough power and clout to get legislation passed, but now nobody feels the need to be nice to them. We would all rather elect stronger partisans who don't get anything done than compromisers who would . . . compromise.

Which Gerson says is a shame. Both parties should see enough of themselves in Lieberman to want to court him -- he's actually in a unique position of power somewhere in between the parties, and by rights both sides should be baking him cookies. Also, because he's a good guy.

Here's a hint for anyone who's inclined to take the cookie-baking option. If you're baking for His Holiness, you would do well to find ways of stuffing large quantities of cash in the baked goods -- I'd say five figures' worth as a starting bid. It's really the only thing that can be counted on to get the senator's attention, unless you count criticism of Israel of any kind, regardless of how outrageous its behavior. (I guess it's proof of the degree of your loyalty when you can defend the object of your devotion when its behavior is the most indefensible.)

Of course the Holyman has made a great show throughout his political career of being an Old Testament moralist, when what he really is an Old Testament kvetch who uses his fake morality as a cloak for his real interest: defending megacorporate America against any challenges to its rightful hegemony over Americans.

In her PostScript post Rachel M doesn't formally take sides; she quotes pro-Joe commenters as well as the smarter Joe-haters. But could anyone fail to see which way the balance of justice tips?

joachim1 tells us how he really feels:

Ending up alone is what happens to traitors who sell themselves to whichever side offers the most at the moment. This man who professed to believe in much, demonstrated he believed in little. Other than his AIPAC-fueled Israel-first mantra over his career, Lieberman stood for little that was not for sale or trade. Now that he has outlived his usefulness to the Republicans as a propaganda tool, they, not surprisingly, have no more interest in him. Nor do Democrats, those that elevated him to be the first Jew to be nominated VP. The man is disgusting, and it is unlikely that even large rocks will grant him space under which to hide.

sober1 likewise understands why nobody wants Lieberman around:

Lieberman has lost credibility with both parties due to his inconsistencies. He wasn't elected by Independents, yet he claims to be one, just as he's claimed to be a Republican and a Democrat in the past. What he is now is anybody's guess, though a loose cannon comes to mind as most accurate.

Whereas the pro-Joes have arguments like this one from Walter16:

I find my views to be far closer to those of Senator Lieberman than to those of either Romney or Obama. Presently, I am favoring Obama in the next election but I am not happy with the choice.

What can that mean, to have views that are "far closer to those of Senator Lieberman" than to those of anyone else? "Views"? What views? You mean, like: If it's not nailed down, it's meant to be stolen."

In the end, Rachel does sort of tip her hande, concluding:

PostScript sees no reason why Lieberman can't have his own convention. He could even invite all the other people nobody wants in their party: George W. Bush, Al Gore, PostScript, Bernie Madoff, Snooki, etc. Okay, now PostScript sees the advantage of being a party of one.

It's true that the Senate as newer-fangled models of creeps and thugs. But even as the Jesse Helmses and Strom Thurmonds of yesteryear have given way to Jim DeMints and John Kyls, that's hardly grounds for nostalgia.

#