I Shall Survive

Arlen Specter is one of the worst, most soul-less, most belief-free individuals in politics. The moment most vividly illustrating what Specter is: prior to the vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, he went to the floor of the Senate and said what the bill "seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years" and is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He then proceeded to vote YES on the bill's passage.

This is the essential essence of Arlen. Arlen Specter, the newest member of the Democratic Party in the Senate. Sen. Arlen Specter To Switch Parties; Could Give Democrats Filibuster-Proof Congressional Majority.

As Glenn Greenwald (quoted above) says of Specter, What Specter's switch says about him, the Democrats and our political spectrum:

The idea that Specter is a "liberal" Republican or even a "moderate" reflects how far to the Right both the GOP and our overall political spectrum has shifted.

Consider Specter’s most significant votes over the last eight years, ones cast in favor of such definitive right-wing measures as: the war on Iraq, the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act renewal, confirmation of virtually every controversial Bush appointee, retroactive telecom immunity, warrantless eavesdropping expansions, and Bush tax cuts (several times). Time and again during the Bush era, Specter stood with Republicans on the most controversial and consequential issues.

And let's not forget that Arlen Specter is the man who started the whole US Attorney mess by changing the statutory approval process, since was responsible for the change in the law that permitted the replacement of the US Attorneys without Senate confirmation. So, he's hardly Joseph of the Amazing Dreamcoat for Democrats.

When my husband called to tell me about Specter's switch, I told him that I may have been one of the first to predict it. In the beginning of January, during the contentious Holder confirmation hearings, I said, in Puff the Magic Dragon:

Of course, Specter will perform his dragon routine, creating a bunch of fake noise about Holder to please the conservatives, then end up doing nothing. If he follows his usual routine, he'll even end up voting to confirm him, when all is said & done [which he in fact did do].

Specter has long played the role of conservative toady in disguise as a moderate. I'm sure he began his career (long, long ago) as a moderate (fiscally conservative, social issues moderate), which played well with the Southeastern Pennsylvania electorate. With the rise of Reagan, then Bush, the GOP required fealty to its brand of conservative orthodoxy, and Specter complied. The result has been a mixed bag for him. He has alienated his true constituency, the moderate Republicans (and even some Democrats) who live in SE Pennsylvania, yet he is viewed with skepticism by the ultra conservatives, who don't believe for a minute that he's a true believer. And for them, merely following the party line is insufficient. You must be a true convert. So, as much as he scrapes and bows for the, Specter will always be another McCain to them -- someone you just can't trust.

He had a tough primary race during his last re-election campaign and this one may prove even harder.

This was shortly after Chris Matthews finally decided not to enter the race to challenge Arlen. After noting the number of potential Democrats who were voicing interest in the race, I then added:

Gee, maybe Specter will join that list, switching back to the Democratic Party, from whence he came. Now, that sure would make things interesting.

Of course, many others considered that option more recently, as it became increasingly clear that Specter would have a seemingly insurmountable primary contest, especially after the Pat Toomey jumped into the race against him on the GOP side. Dick Polman's piece on why Specter should switch teams in March was delightfully on target, in Arlen Specter's route to survival.

So, besides providing lots of fodder for the media (and bloggers), what does it all mean?

As Nate Silver of 538 put it, Specter's Switch More Insult Than Injury to GOP:

This strikes me as being bad news for the Republican Party more than it is good news for the Democrats.

Closer to home, Booman Tribune describes the Specter move, Thoughts on Specter:

We Democrats here in Pennsylvania know Arlen Specter's record better than anyone and you'll be hearing endless reiterations of his many sins over the next two years. I don't need to do that now. Suffice to say that most progressives in this state find Specter to be enormously frustrating. We do not dispute that he is what passes these days for a moderate Republican. We know that he has a good record on labor issues and that he is officially pro-choice. I know high level people in the teacher's unions that intended to re-register as Republicans to vote for him in the primary and then re-register as Democrats to vote against him in the general. Specter is not hated or despised by most people, but he isn't liked or respected either.

We were hoping to beat him in the 2010 election, not be asked to support him. I suspect most activists and progressives will simply refuse to work for his reelection and we'll probably get organized in the Netroots to do the best job we can financing an alternative in the primary."

On the other hand, Specter has been pretty popular in this state and I know many Democrats (and former Republicans) who are pretty happy about the change. As Steven Reynolds of All Spin Zone said, Snarlin’ Arlen Crossing From the Dark Side:

I understand Mr. Specter has promised to give back political contributions from supporters if they do not agree with his decision. Of the people I know who have given him money, I know of many who will be cheering this move. Yes, even some in my own household will be cheering.

In the end, I think he'll end up going back to being moderate Arlen, freed from the necessity of having to please the guns & Christ crowd. In that vein, I fully expect that, despite his protestations to the contrary, that he'll vote for the Employees Free Choice (Card Check), or at least vote for cloture. Please. This is Arlen Specter we are talking about. As I've noted many times before, he hasn't been called Chameleon, The Manchurian Senator, A Gutless Republican Worm and Wafflin' Arlen for nothing.

Quoting Booman Tribune's Quote of the Day:

Jonathan Chait:

"When a politician switches parties, it’s customary for the party he’s abandoned to denounce him as an unprincipled hack, and the party he’s joined to praise him as a brave convert who’s genuinely seen the light. But I think it’s pretty clear that Specter is an unprincipled hack."

But now he is our unprincipled hack.

And for the last word on this (at least for now), is Chris Matthews, who delivered a devastating analysis on Countdown:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Oh Happy Day

I've certainly had my issues with Arlen Specter, Arlen, We Really Knew Ye, the Senator from Pennsylvania who, despite his label as a moderate, has spent most of the past many years wiggling around trying to please the conservative contingent in his party. It's been to no avail, of course, because the zealots require total fealty on all matters and waffling is not permitted. Moderate Republicans and Democrats have generally given Arlen a pass, figuring he's really a closet moderate and his turns to the right are just for show as election time approaches.

After doing his own political shuffle, see Ta-Ta Toomey, conservative former Lehigh Valley Congressman Pat Toomey has decided to challenger Specter once again. He came very close to defeating Specter last time and many of the moderates have fled the GOP, leaving Toomey's base in firm control.

As the Inky notes, Toomey announces GOP senate bid:

Conservative Pat Toomey, a former Lehigh Valley congressman, this morning announced he is running for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in the 2010 election.

In a videotaped message on his new campaign website (www.ToomeyForSenate.com), Toomey says the nation is at a "crossroads" between a greatly expanding federal government and the direction of more economic freedom.

The move sets up a much-anticipated rematch with moderate Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) who earned a fifth term in 2004 after defeating a challenge from Toomey by about 17,000 votes out of more than 1 million cast. Their race will feature a key debate among Republicans: Did their party lose power because it stopped appealing to moderates, or because it was not true to conservative principles?

This may be the only way Arlen goes. As I said before, Puff the Magic Dragon:

Specter has long played the role of conservative toady in disguise as a moderate. I'm sure he began his career (long, long ago) as a moderate (fiscally conservative, social issues moderate), which played well with the Southeastern Pennsylvania electorate. With the rise of Reagan, then Bush, the GOP required fealty to its brand of conservative orthodoxy, and Specter complied. The result has been a mixed bag for him. He has alienated his true constituency, the moderate Republicans (and even some Democrats) who live in SE Pennsylvania, yet he is viewed with skepticism by the ultra conservatives, who don't believe for a minute that he's a true believer. And for them, merely following the party line is insufficient. You must be a true convert. So, as much as he scrapes and bows for the, Specter will always be another McCain to them -- someone you just can't trust.

He had a tough primary race during his last re-election campaign and this one may prove even harder.

With the core of the GOP the way it is, there's a good chance Toomey will prevail in the primary. The good news is that Toomey will have a tough time in the general election, since the moderate wing of the state will not want another Rick Santorum.

In fact, I even wondered whether Arlen would revert back to the Democratic Party, which would probably be the only way he could win. In fact, he's been approached by Ed Rendell & others about doing just that, but he has apparently elected not to.

It wouldn't surprise me if the GOP was like one of those secret societies that you're not permitted to leave once you join. Maybe he's afraid that the Republicans will take out a contract on him if he switches his party.

A Day to Remember

It was most fitting that I watched the inauguration with the LLWL Gang, after all of our political discussions throughout the election season. We gathered at the home of one of our members, watched the swearing in, and we then enjoyed a lunch (natch) of ham, along with honey, cheese and fruit. We are the Lady Lawyers Who Lunch, after all. We ended the lovely day with a birthday cake for one of the gang, who shares a birthday with Michelle Obama.

Choo-Choo

The road to the White House starts in Philadelphia. President elect Obama began his whistle stop train route to DC via Philly, following Abraham Lincoln's journey.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

See Obama Express Train Tour

Yes, We All Can

Getting ready for the inauguration.


We are all going to need a lot of this, considering what we are faced with as of January 20, 2009, thanks to George W. Bush (the real "that one").

And for the next generation, what I hope we leave them with.

You too can express yourself at Obamicon.Me.

(via The Quaker Agitator)

The First 100

Today is January 11th. We have finally passed the mark. We are now into the single digits and counting the days until January 20th.

This certainly has been the strangest interlude between Presidencies ever. We have George W. Bush, who is President in name only. Instead, he's solely focused on making up his legacy, tap dancing his way to infamy. And then we have the President-elect. Barack "One President at a time" Obama has been playing President pretty much from the day after the election (and doing a better job than the guy who's been there for 8 years).

Of course, with his early start, there are strong expectations that he needs to solve all the pent up problems NOW -- you know, those niggling problems like the economy, the Middle East, Iraq, health care, Guantanamo. And then, in his second week, he should turn to things like immigration, the environment, China, Russia, Iran -- and perhaps fix some of those Cabinet picks of his as well.

With the warp speed needed to address (and fix) our various pressing needs, Obama has tried to dampen expectations and has proposed a new yardstick for measuring his accomplishments -- that is, a 1000 day Presidential grace period before his first report card is issued.

Well, good luck with that! In fact, Dennis DiClaudio of Comedy Central has unveiled the more appropriate criteria, as put forth by Mad Magazine: Barack Obama’s First 100 Minutes. DiClaudio explains:

As Barack Obama prepares to take office in less than two weeks -- still seems like an eternity, doesn't it? -- There's been a lot of talk about how he'll spend, and what he'll achieve, during his first 100 days in office.

Even though he's warned against expecting miracles during that time period and has tried in vain to consider instead his first 1,000 days in office (yeah, right), the speculation does not end.

Mad Magazine has a different question: What will Barack Obama achieve during his first 100 minutes in office?

And of course, Mad Magazine being Mad Magazine, they've come up with the answers:

Here's a sampling of their findings...

Minutes 1-2: Round up Michelle and kids, give finger to Bush and Cheney, head to Oval Office

Minute 3: Remove stupid flag pin from lapel

Minutes 10-13: Sneak out to Rose Garden for a quick smoke

Minute 25: Go on Facebook; put out a friend request to Ahmadinejad (with no preconditions)

Minute 26: Remind Biden to "shut his f*#king cakehole"

Minutes 45-48: Sneak out to Rose Garden for a quick smoke

Minutes 65-67: Delete "private" Scarlett Johansson photos before surrendering Blackberry to Secret Service

Minutes 91-99: Do a little blow

For the rest, see The First 100 Minutes of the Obama Presidency.

(Many, many thanks to Jonathan Valania of Phawker for this one)

Puff the Magic Dragon

With the Presidential race barely over (the new President hasn't even been sworn in yet), political pundits are turning their thoughts to elections future.

The 2010 Senate race in Pennsylvania will be a thriller. It has already been the subject of much speculation, with the possibility of Hardball's Chris Matthews entering the race on the Democratic ticket. See Life is a Campaign. After toying with the idea for several months, he apparently has decided that's he's happy just the way he is. Sounds like he's close to reaching a new contract with MSNBC. See Chris Matthews happy where he is.

Even without Matthews, the race will be one that generates great interest.

And it appears to be underway already. Arlen Specter has lobbed his first foray by leading the charge against Obama nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder. As Dick Polman describes, Arlen Specter tilting rightward:

Arlen Specter, the senior senator from Pennsylvania and longtime endangered species, launched his 2010 re-election bid on the Senate floor yesterday.

Specter's ostensible target was Eric Holder, the Obama administration's nominee for attorney general; as the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Specter vowed - in notably harsh tones - to give Holder a very tough time during the upcoming confirmation hearings, just to ensure that Holder will not be merely a water carrier for the Obama White House.

But, between the lines, here's what Specter was really saying: "I'm up for re-election in less than two years, which means it's time for me to suck up to the right wing of my party. I've long had a reputation as a moderate Republican, but moderate Republicans are an endangered species, especially in the Northeast; basically, the only ones left in the Senate are me and the two ladies from Maine. The right-wing Pennsylvania voters almost booted me out four years ago - I barely survived the party primary that April, beating conservative Pat Toomey by only 1.6 percent - and those voters would love to get me in the 2010 party primary. So this means I've gotta start sucking up to them, prove to them that I can be tough on Obama, and play the obstructionist when necessary. Better start now."

Of course, Specter will perform his dragon routine, creating a bunch of fake noise about Holder to please the conservatives, then end up doing nothing. If he follows his usual routine, he'll even end up voting to confirm him, when all is said & done.

Specter has long played the role of conservative toady in disguise as a moderate. I'm sure he began his career (long, long ago) as a moderate (fiscally conservative, social issues moderate), which played well with the Southeastern Pennsylvania electorate. With the rise of Reagan, then Bush, the GOP required fealty to its brand of conservative orthodoxy, and Specter complied. The result has been a mixed bag for him. He has alienated his true constituency, the moderate Republicans (and even some Democrats) who live in SE Pennsylvania, yet he is viewed with skepticism by the ultra conservatives, who don't believe for a minute that he's a true believer. And for them, merely following the party line is insufficient. You must be a true convert. So, as much as he scrapes and bows for the, Specter will always be another McCain to them -- someone you just can't trust.

He had a tough primary race during his last re-election campaign and this one may prove even harder. As the Inquirer observes:

Some analysts say they believe that Specter, 78, is more vulnerable than ever despite his moderate record on many issues, because centrist Republican voters in the Northeastern United States have been deserting the party in recent years. In the four suburban counties around Philadelphia, the GOP has lost 61,000 registered voters since 2004; Democrats now have a statewide advantage of 1.2 million registered voters.

The GOP primary electorate has grown more conservative, analysts say. And in 2004, Specter barely survived a primary challenge from Pat Toomey, then a conservative Lehigh Valley congressman and now head of the antitax Club for Growth. Toomey has left the door open to another go.

Polman agrees:

The guy has to make nice with the right if he wants to survive a 2010 Republican primary; after all, Toomey and at least two other conservatives are weighing the possibility of assailing Specter on his right flank.

Moreover, Specter may have a problem with the Republican electorate. In Pennsylvania, the GOP runs a "closed" primary, which means that only registered Republicans can vote. As Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, explained last week in a newspaper column, "Specter's biggest problem...may be that thousands of southeastern Pennsylvania Republicans who voted for him in 2004 can't vote for him in the (2010) primary. Why? Because they're no longer Republicans."

Exactly. I've got the figures here. Between November 2004 and November 2008, the statewide tally of registered Pennsylvania Republicans shrank by roughly 162,000. It's safe to assume that a huge share of those emigrants are moderates from the Philadelphia suburbs who got fed up with the Bush regime and the Republican Congress. Those are the voters that Specter needs to survive a primary; without them, the Republican primary electorate is disproportionately dominated by the conservative voters who have stuck with the party.

I wasn't thinking about the fact that the Pennsylvania GOP has become home to the hardliners, which he has to get through before he can face the voters who may still view him favorably. The moderates first began leaving the party to help put Ed Rendell in the governer's office and have continued to move during the Bush travesty years. I expected him to move to the middle as his only chance of prevailing. See Playing Hardball?. However, that may not be an option for him. And, if he does survive a bruising primary with a Toomey type, will he have lost the goodwill of the moderates when he then faces a Democratic opponent?

Will Bunch analyzes Specter's vulnerability in He plays "Softball". As he notes:

But I think Specter, even at age 80 next November, will be the overwhelming favorite for a sixth term, unless...

People like Rick Santorum are right (!) and Specter's real fight is with a true conservative in a GOP primary. There's certainly evidence that Spector is already drifting to the right, or....

...Pennsylvania, after voting for Gore, Kerry and Obama (and Rendell and Casey) is becoming such a blue state that even a centrist long-time incumbent like Specter can't win anymore with an (R) after his name. That would be a big development, for 2010 and beyond.

And there will be no lack of Democrats who think this may be their time. As the Inquirer notes, the line is already forming:

Among them: Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham, U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy of Bucks County, State Rep. Josh Shapiro of Montgomery County, Constitution Center CEO Joseph M. Torsella, and Auditor General Jack Wagner of Allegheny County.

Will Bunch adds his speculation:

So if not Matthews, then who? As I've written here earlier, I'd love to see Bucks County congressman Patrick Murphy make the leap, although I think that other Democratic military guy, Joe Sestak in Delaware County, is more ambitious and more likely to run. Sestak would have two pluses: He's an ex-admiral in very pro-veteran state, and he has a base in the critical Philly suburbs. But he's also said to be the boss from hell and doesn't have much of a track record yet as a lawmaker.

And the latest, from Commonwealth Confidential, is that "Politicos say that state Rep. Dwight Evans, a Philadelphia Democrat and the powerful chairman of House Appropriations, is quietly considering a run for the U.S. Senate next year."

Gee, maybe Specter will join that list, switching back to the Democratic Party, from whence he came. Now, that sure would make things interesting.

Remember the Moments

To usher in 2009, a few of the best moments of SNL:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(Via onegoodmove)

Pass the Silver Polish

Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has opted not to further tarnish its image by getting involved in the electoral process again. That is, the various frivolous claims regarding Barack Obama's birth have once again been rebuffed. See The Birth of a Citizen for my previous post on this issue.

As the SCOTUSblog reports:

In a brief order, the Court, as expected, turned aside a New Jersey voter’s plea for the Court to determine if President-elect Barack Obama was qualified to run for the White House — that is whether he was a “natural born citizen.” The stay application came in the case of Donofrio v. Wells, Secretary of State of New Jersey (08A407). This marked the second time in recent weeks for the Court to turn aside such a challenge; the first came on Nov. 3, in Berg v. Obama (08A391). The Court, in neither instance, gave reasons for turning down the applications. In neither case did the Court seek a reponse, thus indicating it had little interest in either or had found them to be completely without merit.

In other words, as Gawker explains, SCOTUS Refuses to Deny Secret Muslim the Presidency:

Sad news for crazy people: the Supreme Court decided not to hear an emergency call to intervene to stop Barack Obama from assuming the presidency, on account of how he's secretly not a citizen.

Or as Wonkette says:

Having lost pretty much everything else, forever, the wingnuts have focused all of their intellectual firepower on a single foolproof argument: Barack Obama cannot be president, because they say he’s a scary African. Somehow this important issue has come before the United States Supreme Court, twice! And so far, our communist Highest Court has refused to even consider the crucial situation! Today, the justices again spit on the legal efforts of Real Americans.

See Libtard Supreme Court Will Let Alien Monster Barack Obama Be President!

Rather than merely mocking these nuts, as I am wont to do, The Anonymous Liberal takes a more reasoned approach, and actually addresses the claims more seriously, in A Question for the Obama Birth Certificate Conspiracy Theorists, inquiring as to the point of their challenges:

To these folks, I ask a simple question: what is your endgame? Suppose (purely for the sake of discussion) that you're right, and there is something technically deficient about Obama's claim to natural born citizenship. Maybe he was born overseas and his mother smuggled him into Hawaii just after birth. Maybe he floated into Pearl Harbor in a bassinet like Moses, from origins unknown. Maybe he descended from Krypton in an escape pod. Whatever the case, let's imagine that something like that happened and that you could somehow prove it. What then?

Obama was elected president by a large margin. He has approval ratings in the 70s. Most of his cabinet has been selected. The transition is well underway. And the country is in a very precarious state. Do you really think that a federal court is going to declare Obama ineligible to be president and plunge the country into chaos? Can you imagine the repercussions? Talk about "judicial activism." We would have a constitutional crisis of epic proportions. We would have riots in the streets.

Let me save you the suspense. That's not going to happen. Not in a million years. Even if you managed to get your hands on ironclad evidence that Obama was born somewhere else (which you won't), the courts will not entertain your claim. They will find some grounds (likely lack of standing) to dismiss your case. Trust me.

Finally, Arianna Huffington discusses the matter with Keith Olbermann on Countdown:



What all of this means is that Yes, Virginia, Obama is going to become the President of these not always United States.

Life is a Campaign

As an update to my earlier post on Chris Matthews' plans to run for Senate in Pennsylvania, Playing Hardball?, FiveThirtyEight.com also published an update, noting that Matthews Denies Report. Then what to make of his visit to Pennsylvania last week, as reported by the Harrisburg Patriot-News, Chris Matthews ponders Senate run, but remains undecided:

Matthews met with state Democratic party officials this week to talk about challenging U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., in 2010. He met with Democratic State Committee Chairman T.J. Rooney and executive director Mary Isenhour in Washington, D.C., to discuss the logistics involved in a Senate run.

* * * *

For about a year, there have been numerous reports that Matthews wants to run. He spoke with The Patriot-News in July about the speculation. Matthews wouldn't confirm that he was interested in running, but he did not deny it. Family members told The Patriot-News he's considering it.

Before you start shaking your head in confusion, remember that Matthews authored a book called "Life is a Campaign." With this in mind, Matthews' denial must be carefully considered. As TPM Election Central explains:

Chris Matthews is denying reports that he's recruiting staffers from the Obama campaign for a possible race for Senator from Pennsylvania in 2010.

'It is absolutely not true,' Matthews said in a statement posted on FiveThirtyEight.com. Matthews appears to be denying that he's staffing up -- but not necessarily denying that he's in some way planning a campaign. (Emphasis added).

John Morgan of The Pennsylvania Progressive, The Tweety Factor, provides some background on the race and Philly native Matthews:

Mary Isenhour, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party says Chris Matthews is serious, though undecided, about running against Arlen Specter in 2010. According to sources Matthews would run on the Democratic ticket. His brother Jim is a long time Republican and Montgomery County Commissioners Chair. Jim Matthews also ran for Lt. Governor on the Lynn Swann ticket.

Chris Matthews has been a resident of Washington, D.C. for some now where he hosts his popular MSNBC show 'Hardball.' Long considered to be partisanly Republican his presence on a Democratic ticket could lead to interesting Thanksgiving conversations at the Matthews clan. Pennsylvanians don't take kindly to carpetbagger candidates (look up what happened to Rick Santorum) and Democrats don't lack a list of strong candidates for this seat. In fact there might well be a primary if Matthews wants to run because many Dems don't like him, don't see a carpetbagger having a serious chance of winning, and already are backing a Schwartz, Murphy or Sestak candidacy.

See also, CQ Politics, Eye on the Senate: Chris Matthews Running in Pa.? Bad Omens for Reid? (with video clip of Matthews on The Colbert Report saying, "I want to be a Senator.")

My all time favorite Chris Matthews interview is of him being interviewed by Jon Stewart, on Matthews' book, Life is a Campaign. Stewart's comment, "I'm not trashing your book, I'm trashing your philosophy on life," is a classic. Of the interview, Matthews says "This is a book interview from hell. This is the worst interview I've had in my life."

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Chris Matthews

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

And finally, reacting to Matthews' 5 word denial, 236.c0m created a longer, more detailed "I'm not running for Senate" o-tron. Help him choose his words! Chris Matthews interrupts Black Friday to announce that he won't be interrupting the Senate in 2010.

Joe's the Man

BuzzFlash has a weekly feature, GOP Hypocrite of the Week, and this week's winner is that sanctimonious sad sack, Joe Lieberman. Now, Lieberman may win the prize as the ugliest human in the world, but that doesn't stop him from competing for other awards. I'm certain he wins the Traitor of the Year Award for his recent election antics. And now he lands yet another honor that he justly deserves. After all, he worked hard to get there:

The Senate Democratic caucus may have given Joe Lieberman a reprieve, but we can't.

Since we began publishing BuzzFlash.com in May of 2000, the gold standard for Republicans in high places has been brazen hypocrisy. That's why we created this special BuzzFlash site to "honor" those who practice the opposite of what they preach.

* * * *

Of course, every once in awhile comes along a Democrat who comes out of the closet as a Republican, and such is the case with Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman could be a Jewish James Dobson in that he oozes with such self-righteousness, while practicing the politics of fear and hysteria.

* * * *

After the Democratic caucus refused to punish Lieberman for his scathing attacks on not only Obama but also the idea that a 60-member Democratic Senate might be dangerous to the national security of America, Lieberman claimed that his lacerating comments about the President-elect and the Democrats had been misunderstood.

* * * *

Lieberman keeps telling himself and us that he is a man of integrity.

But he's not. He's a hypocritical opportunist with notions of empire and ambition that far exceed his grasp.

Once I stopped laughing, the comparison of Lieberman as a Jewish James Dobson made me think it was time for another episode of Jew, Not a Jew. Last up on the Jew, Not a Jew Machine was Eliot Spitzer, following his tryst with a shiksa prostitute.

Oh, I know, the name's a give-a-way. However, for the definitive answer on Lieberman, I consulted that oracle of Jew or Not Jew, who had this to say, in pronouncing him a Jew:

Say it ain't so Joe!

The first prominent American Jewish politician since... well, ever and he's an unlikeable dope?

Why?!?!?!?!

This was it, y'know? He was on the ticket! I mean, come on, if someone told you there was a Jew on the ballot, you'd vote for him blindly right? Who cares about his platform, we're davening down Pennsylvania Ave! Except... ugh...

Joe... you're killing us here!

OK, so he didn't lie about his background, get a blowjob in the oval office or decide to make his own didactic personal beliefs into nation-wide policy like so many other ham-on-white politicians of late.

But, boy it's hard to like him. And we really feel we ought to make ourselves like him.

But we can't.

Of course, Lieberman's Profile hasn't been updated since he came out of the closet as a Republican during the 2008 election, by campaigning for McCain and other GOP candidates. The Democrats may yet live to regret making nice and let Lieberman keep his post as Chair of Homeland Security. By doing so, he now has another opportunity to pull a Judas Iscariot, by instigating meritless investigations of the Obama Administration. However, if he does do the Judas thing, he risks lowering his Jew Score into the realm of Borderline Jew. And, he surely doesn't want that -- since no other religion wants him either.

For another worthy contestant, although he may have banished from the scene, there's George Allen: Jew, Not a Jew?

The Birth of a Citizen

Every once in a while, a lawyer has to do something totally outrageous -- just to remind everyone why they hate lawyers. And, of course, to make things worse, it would have to be a Philadelphia lawyer who does it, so we could maintain our bad rep.

The latest effort to give lawyers a bad name is courtesy of Philip Berg, an attorney in the Philly suburbs. Obviously, he must be looking for something to do to keep himself busy during the economic downturn that has impacted many in the legal community.

During the primary, Berg filed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's citizenship, claiming that Obama was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii, which would disqualify him from becoming President. Shortly before the election, U.S. District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick in Philly threw the case out. As the Daily News reported, Judge rejects Montco lawyer's bid to have Obama removed from ballot:

In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg's allegations of harm were "too vague and too attenuated" to confer standing on him or any other voters.

Surrick ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."

The judge also said the harm Berg alleged did "not constitute an injury in fact" and Berg's arguments to the contrary "ventured into the unreasonable."

That little setback didn't stop Berg. Nor did the fact that the director of Hawaii's department of health confirmed that she had personally seen and verified that Hawaii's state department of health has Obama's original birth certificate on record. Or, that there was a birth announcement for baby Barack Obama published in a 1961 Honolulu newspaper. What's facts got to do with it? As Yes To Democracy says, there is nothing that would ever be sufficent to establish the facts these looney tunes don't want to believe. Whatever is proven is never enough.

As Forbes reports, Obama’s Birth Certificate Challenger Keeps Going:

You've got to hand it to Philip J. Berg: he doesn't give up easily. You might recall that Philadelphia attorney Berg tried, and failed, to halt the presidential election of Barack Obama on the grounds that he is not a native-born citizen. Game over, right? Wrong.

Berg filed a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in late October, asking that the highest court review the decision of the U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania. The latter court dismissed Berg's claims because he lacked standing to bring them. Standing requires plaintiffs to prove they are directly affected by the issue at hand, with evidence of injury that is concrete and particular. In its decision the district court said Berg "does not, and we believe cannot, establish injury in fact." It also dismissed his claims as frivolous.

Berg takes this in stride. His writ, he says, requires Obama and the Democratic National Council to respond by December 1. Also, he has another arrow in his quiver. He's filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., under the False Claims Act, which is often used in Medicaid fraud. "I am basing this on the fact that as a U.S. senator [Obama] is collecting money illegally because he is not a citizen of this country," he says.

Berg has also enlisted similarly wacky Alan Keyes to likewise institute a complaint on the same basis. See Deez Nutz: Philip Berg, Barack Obama Birth Certificate Challenger and 9/11 Nutjob. See also, Alan Keyes Sues Barack Obama.

Raising the specter that the Supreme Court could potentially be dragged in to another election case, Steven Reynolds of All Spin Zone, Whack Job Scenario: SCOTUS to Decide Election, provides the latest update on the status of the case before the Supreme Court:

[T]he Supreme Court has accepted the Philip Berg challenge to Barack Obama’s citizenship for conference on December 5th. It appears the case was first submitted to Justice Souter, who denied the request. When resubmitted to Justice Thomas, one of the Justices who helped decide the 2000 election, the petition was accepted. The hearing will be December 5th, 10 days before the Electoral College meets on Decemeber 15th.

Even with Uncle Thomas on the bench, after the debacle that resulted from their last foray into election tampering, there is no way the Supreme Court is going to ever get involved in another Presidential contest.

For more on the history of this silly litigation, see Wingnuts away! Phillip J. Berg- a crackpot and his lawsuit!.

It's OK

It's time for the Friday Night Funnies.

I realize that the election is over, but I couldn't resist this bit by David Alan Grier of Chocolate News on why it's OK to vote for Barack Obama.

(Thanks to Bluegal at Crooks and Liars)

More Cake Please

Sometimes you can in fact have your cake and eat it too. Such is the case with the word that Ted Stevens has lost his re-election bid late yesterday, on his 85th birthday. Begich topples Stevens in Senate race.

As Ken Layne expressed it so well, With Ted Stevens' Tragic Loss, the Good Old America Is Gone Forever:

It's official, and it's a national tragedy: Ted Stevens has lost his Senate seat to some Democrat, in Alaska.

* * * *

Today, on his 85th birthday, the convicted felon and old white Republican Ted Stevens has been voted out of the office -- voted out of office by Alaskans.

In the good old days, there were three Americas: rich white people, poor white people who hopelessly identified with rich white people, and everybody else such as minorities and native peoples or whatever. The "everybody else" part of this country has been restless and troublesome from the beginning.

Back in Thomas Jefferson's day, people who didn't own land wanted to vote. Next thing you know, women wanted to vote. Then slaves wanted to be free -- that may have been before the women-wanting-to-vote thing, history is unclear -- and then minorities wanted to vote! Native Americans and even native Alaskans wanted "rights." At some point, Germans and Irishmen wanted something, although it was never clear what.

And now that "Ted is Dead" (figuratively speaking, of course), what is to become of that lovely lass from Alaska -- Sarah Palin?

As Peter Brown wrote in the Wall Street Journal, Why Palin in 2012 Needs Sen. Stevens to Win:

As bizarre as it may seem, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s presidential ambitions for 2012 hang to a considerable degree on her state’s U.S. Senate race, a contest that could be decided this week.

* * * *

Of course she could remain Alaska governor and still run for president. But, the logistics of getting to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the three states with the first primary contests where the 2012 GOP nomination could be decided, are more than formidable.

* * * *

[I]f she wants to run for president in 2012, she would be much better off if Sen. Stevens is re-elected. If not, the road from Juneau to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue could be considerably more difficult.

Oh, I can almost taste the Old Forge pizza that I'll be getting upon winning my bet that it's Sayonara Sarah.

In the meantime, I can have my cake & eat it too -- with icing on it no less! It is just yummy!!

And here's Uncle Ted's reaction upon hearing the news of his loss:

Ding Dong the Witch is Dead

Today's Philadelphia Inquirer carries an editorial that may have been written to the tune of "Ding, dong the witch is dead" while proclaiming the end of racism in America. Written by Tom Atkins, publisher of something called commonconservative.com (emphasis on the word common), White guilt? Done; over; history, who shrilly declares:

The Era of White Guilt is over.

This seemingly impossible event occurred because the vast majority of white Americans didn't give a fluff about skin color and enthusiastically pulled the voting lever for a black man. Not just any black man. A very liberal black man who spent his early career race-hustling banks, praying in a racist church for 20 years, and actively working with America-hating domestic terrorists. Yet white Americans made Barack Obama their leader. Therefore, as of Nov. 4, 2008, white guilt is dead.

So today, I'm feeling a little "uppity," if you will. For more than a century, the millstone of white guilt hung around our necks, retribution for slave-owning predecessors. In the 1960s, American liberals began yanking that millstone while sticking a fork in the eye of black Americans, exacerbating the racial divide to extort a socialist solution to the country's problems. But if a black man can become president, exactly what significant barrier is left? The election of Barack Obama destroys the validation of liberal white guilt. The dragon is hereby slain.

So today, I'm feeling a little "uppity," if you will. From this day forward, my tolerance level for having my skin color hustled is exactly ZERO. No more Rev. Jeremiah Wright's "God Damn America," Al Sharpton's Church of Perpetual Victimization, or Jesse Jackson's rainbow racism. Cornel West? You're a fraud. All those "black studies" programs must now teach kids to thank Whitey. And I want that on the final.

* * * *

No more quotas. No more handouts. No more complaining that "the man" is keeping you down. "The man" is now black.

Gee, this man definitely has serious issues, as they say. He sure sounds like some sarcastic sad sack, with a few anger issues thrown in. He may believe that white guilt is over, but he proves that extreme ugly is not. Perhaps he might be someone down on his luck -- a realtor in a bad market, perhaps?

Of course, while he was busily penning his rant, I don't suppose that Atkins happened to read the rest of the Inky lately -- such as the parts describing the racist acts that recently occurred recently at St. Joseph's University and La Salle University here in Philly? At La Salle, several black students said they were assaulted and subjected to racial slurs that after the presidential election. There was also a drawing of a stick figure in a noose that was found in a classroom at St. Joe's. See 2 universities probe racial incidents. See also, Hate crimes up on campuses, group says. But hey, maybe those guys just didn't get the message yet.

Of course, I guess he also missed those articles reporting that the election has caused a significant increase in race-related incidents? Obama election spurs race threats, crimes. As the Christian Science Monitor reports, After Obama's win, white backlash festers in US:

The election of America's first black president has triggered more than 200 hate-related incidents, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center – a record in modern presidential elections. Moreover, the white nationalist movement, bemoaning an election that confirmed voters' comfort with a multiracial demography, expects Mr. Obama's election to be a potent recruiting tool – one that watchdog groups warn could give new impetus to a mostly defanged fringe element.

Most election-related threats have so far been little more than juvenile pranks. But the political marginalization of certain Southern whites, economic distress in rural areas, and a White House occupant who symbolizes a multiethnic United States could combine to produce a backlash against what some have heralded as the dawn of a postracial America. In some parts of the South, there's even talk of secession.

"Most of this movement is not violent, but there is a substantive underbelly that is violent and does try to make a bridge to people who feel disenfranchised," says Brian Levin of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. "The question is: Will this swirl become a tornado or just an ill wind? We're not there yet, but there's dust on the horizon, a swirling of wind, and the atmospherics are getting put together for [conflict]."

And that newly constructed black church that burned down on election eve? A Time of Hope, Marred by an Act of Horror. I suppose that's one way to eliminate those segregated churches.

Thankfully racism is a thing of the past. If that's the case, the only thing we need to rid ourselves of are conservative haters, like Atkins. Without the vile, angry, hate-filled whining of conservatives, life would be good.

(Via Crooks and Liars, since I no longer read the opinion page of the Inquirer).

The Sarah Swoon

My excuse for indulging in my own version of the Sarah Swoon, of course, is my wager with one of the LLWL members* on whither goes Sarah.

Despite the fact that I have a vested interest in her (hopefully) imminent demise (figuratively, not literally, of course), I have to admit that she has provided me with oodles of giggles, especially in the aftermath of the election.

With such an emphasis on the historical nature of the election and a corresponding outpouring of goodwill, a sarcastic smartass girl needs to get her fix somewhere. And, I have to get it while the gettin' is good, since it looks like Sarah may not be long for hearts, minds (and snickers) of the lower 48.

After all, Senator Ted Stevens may well lose his reelection bid, Begich lead over Stevens grows. This would mean that he won't be kicked out of his seat in the Senate, allowing Palin a chance to run to fill his seat. Likewise, Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly reports that Palin's name was absent from the list of the new leadership team of the Republican Governors Association, PALIN LEFT OUT OF RGA LEADERSHIP.

In the meantime, I can get my dose of Sarah Schadenfreude from such luminaries as Dick Cavett and James Wolcott.

Dick Cavett may have penned the ultimate Sarah simile with The Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla. As he notes:

Electronic devices dislike me. There is never a day when something isn’t ailing. Three out of these five implements — answering machine, fax machine, printer, phone and electric can-opener — all dropped dead on me in the past few days.

Now something has gone wrong with all three television sets. They will only get Sarah Palin.

I can play a kind of Alaskan roulette. Any random channel clicked on by the remote brings up that eager face, with its continuing assaults on the English Lang.

There she is with Larry and Matt and just about everyone else but Dr. Phil (so far). If she is not yet on “Judge Judy,” I suspect it can’t be for lack of trying.

* * * *

I feel a little sorry for John. He aimed low and missed.

What will ambitious politicos learn from this? That frayed syntax, bungled grammar and run-on sentences that ramble on long after thought has given out completely are a candidate’s valuable traits?

* * * *

At the risk of offending, well, you, for example, I worry about just what it is her hollering fans see in her that makes her the ideal choice to deal with the world’s problems: collapsed economies, global warming, hostile enemies and our current and far-flung twin battlefronts, either of which may prove to be the world’s second “30 Years’ War.”

Has there been a poll to see if the Sarah-ites are numbered among that baffling 26 percent of our population who, despite everything, still maintain that President George has done a heckuva job?

His piece is a must read in its entirety, as is Que Sera, Sarah, James Wolcott's precis on Palin:

I've been making a valiant effort to avoid Sarah Palin's nickel-coated charm offensive on cable news, subjecting myself all day on TCM to some of the most cardboard anti-Nazi Hollywood films ever perpetrated . . . . It isn't that I loathe or fear Sarah Palin. It's that she grates. If she were any more grating, she could cut cheddar. Palin as an entertainment phenomenon might be tolerable and even amusing . . . [but] Sarah Palin isn't pursuing mere transient fame but actual power, a pursuit driven by a brassy assurance shielding an apparent lack of knowledge about nearly everything and a breathtaking complacency about that voluminous lack. She doesn't seem to care about what she doesn't know, it doesn't seem to register that what she doesn't know might matter and might be worth knowing even if it didn't. Her sentences seem to be missing vital ligaments when she speaks, yielding a concrete poetry similar to Rumsfeld's musings but with nil intellectual content (Rumsfeld's known unknowns and unknown unknowns at least had an ontological coherence). Now we're stuck with her twangy shtick and her family soap opera, which makes the former Clinton saga look like Les Sylphides. Just as Al Gore must live with the shame of elevating Joe Lieberman to the national stage, no act of contrition John McCain can perform will be penance enough for foisting Sarah Palin on us, subjecting us to her supreme sense of entitlement.

Although she has been entertaining, I can't say I'll miss her when she's gone (and you betcha I won't be amused if she stays & I'm on the losing side of my bet). However, as SNL suggests, we still will have Joe Biden around:



LLWL = Lady Lawyers Who Lunch, a/k/a my officemates.

I Think He's Talking to You

I mentioned before that there is an inter-office wager between me and one of the LLWL members regarding the fate of Sarah Palin.

Now, this is remarkable in several respects. First off, I'm not a gambling woman. I never bet, so my wager of pizza for the office to the winner is extremely out of character for me. This is also an example of a situation where I'm voting against my self-interest, since I think having Palin on the GOP ticket going forward only helps the Democrats. Yet my competitive nature outweighs my concern for the good of the country (I'm not the one who used the slogan "Country First"), so I really want Sarah to bid us a sassy sayonara, with a last wink as she goes.

So, the question is, is she a one-hit wonder, like some of those old bands who made it to the top hit parade seemingly forever, but then dropped off, never to be seen again? She may just be, according the the NYTimes TV Watch, Sarah Palin Rehashes 2008 and Rehearses, Perhaps, for 2012:

Unleashed and not humbled, Ms. Palin is on a speed date with history, upending protocol as she goes. She put herself on full display, in interviews with NBC and Fox News before Mr. McCain had a chance to take a no-victory lap on “The Tonight Show.” And she has many more appearances scheduled throughout the week, including a star turn at the Republican Governors Association meeting in Miami on Thursday.

Ms. Palin could be turning to television to restore her tarnished image, jumpstart a 2012 presidential bid, or both. But so far, viewers have mostly witnessed some of the very traits — disarming candor and staggering presumption — that drove some McCain campaign aides to leak damaging accusations about her.

The news media has moved on to President-elect Barack Obama and his transition team as they try to get a grip on the perilous state of the economy. Ms. Palin’s interviews dragged the subject back to her campaign woes, and she lingered there, feeding curiosity but making no real effort to steer her questioners to the present.

Her demeanor is as positive and peppy as ever, but the criticism evidently took a toll. Even in her kitchen in Wasilla, Alaska, preparing dinner for the family and visiting reporters (moose chili for Greta Van Susteren, a haddock and salmon casserole for Mr. Lauer), Ms. Palin seemed frozen in the bubble of campaign past, fighting to make her case above the whispers of aides, handlers and media consultants.

Reliving her glory days -- or coming back to the scene of the crime. Either way, it doesn't bode well for Palin. My view is that this is the dessert for the media and the public as a filler for those days between the election and the start of the Obama Administration. Palin is our entertainment to distract us from the otherwise daily depressing news of economic disaster. And, if nothing else, she sure does that well.

As if to confirm this sentiment, there's the comments of Democrat strategist Chris Kofinis on MSNBC (including video) from Crooks and Liars:

Chris Kofinis delivers the whammy on Sarah Palin and how she actually is a gift who keeps on giving to Democrats:

Kofinis: Sarah Palin is like that crazy relative who comes over and doesn't want to leave. She just seemingly does not want to leave the limelight. You know, maybe a better way to put it, one of my friends said, 'You know, she's like Sanjayah from American Idol. When is the fifteen minutes gonna be up?'

Brian Goldsmith of Politico, compares her to a stale cereal box, Palin has reached her sell-by date:

It doesn't matter whether Palin was “a joy to work with,” as McCain aides said publicly, or a “diva” and a “whack job,” as some said privately. It doesn't matter whether she decided to buy the $150,000 in new clothes, or the Republican National Committee bought them for her. What matters is her real and measurable effect on the broader American public. And if Sarah Palin were a cereal, she’d be rushed off the shelf.

Of course, with her new loquacious self, she has hinted that she's interested in a senate seat as a means of getting to DC. See Senator Palin?. She's not definitively committing -- it's all up to God. As reported by Political Ticker, President Palin? Alaska governor ponders her future:

Palin said she is leaning on her faith and looking for any future opportunities.

"I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door," she said in an interview that aired Monday on Fox News.

"And if there is an open door in '12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door."

However, she may be in deep trouble if Senator turned convicted felon Ted Stevens loses his re-election bid, as now seems likely. According to FiveThirtyEight.com, Stevens is now behind by 814 votes -- and counting. It will be impossible for her to hold a national audience over time -- with a fickle public -- unless she's able to garner a national role. And I somehow don't think the Obama Administration is hiring -- Sarah, that is.

I think God is trying to send a message to Sarah, but she's just not paying attention. First the election & now this. As a TPM reader notes,

If one were so inclined, couldn't one take the combination of (a) Palin's statement about the relationship between G-d and her possible Senate career and (b) Stevens' almost immediate (miraculous?) drop into a position where he now trails Begich, as proof that of divine intervention?

And then there is the fact that history may not be on her side either. History Working Against A Palin 2012 White House Run. The track record for former VPs on the losing ticket trying a later Presidential run is not a good one. Think Edwards. Think Lieberman.

Finally, in responding to a reader's comments that Palin is the best thing for the Democratic Party, Josh Marshall of TPM agreed, but added, It's Really Time for That Intervention:

I quite agree from a partisan perspective. The more Palin the better. But I think we also need to think about this from the broader perspective of national dignity. And simple human decency. You're at a party and someone's drinking too much and starting to do embarrassing things. Even if you don't like them, and even if the unlovely part of you thinks it's kind of funny, still someone should step in.

I think I'm gonna win this bet!

(Cartoon via Ed Stein, Rocky Mountain News)

Wedding Bell Blues

It wasn't that long ago that we were celebrating gay marriage becoming legal in California. However, although the state was solidly behind the election of soon to be President Obama, it now it looks like California, along with their "enlightened" brethren in Arkansas and Florida, have decided to outlaw gay marriage. Shame on them!

Apparently, a veritable religious frenzy ensued in California, where the Mormon and Catholic Churches, as well as various black Churches, all battled to make their religious inspired homophobia the law of the land. See also, Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8.

There have been numerous protests since the ban was enacted, especially against the Mormon Church, which poured millions into support of the same sex marriage ban. Utah Boycott Urged After Calif. Vote. In fact, a friend sent me a Petition to Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of Latter-day Saints (The Mormons).

You would think that the Mormon Church would have learned that bigotry doesn't wear well? After all, the Mormon Church considered blacks to be second class citizens until the late '70s. See We Shall Overcome. I still recall the old refrain of Brigham Young University (of "bring 'em old, bring 'em young, just bring 'em white" fame).

Like other forms of bigotry, this too shall pass. It's only a question of when, not if.

However, in the meantime, it is unfortunate that, once again, religion is used as the means to promote bigotry and hatred. As noted in an op-ed piece in the San Fransisco Chronicle, Church and state: The issue of Prop. 8:

Proposition 8 has passed, denying to some the right enjoyed by other citizens in California, the right to marry. Now, the central question for the courts to decide is: Are gays in California equal, or can members of certain churches declare them constitutionally inferior?

The approval of a constitutional ban on gay marriage raises troubling but age-old issues concerning the lines between religion and government. Before the founders of our country separated church and state, there were hundreds of years of turmoil caused by one religion dominating the government and using it against nonbelievers.

* * * *

The drafters of the U.S. Constitution had a brilliant, experienced view concerning the importance of drawing the lines to protect religion on the one hand and civil government on the other. They put those lines in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Today, those lines are very relevant.

Government may not attack religion. Californians who have religious beliefs concerning the proper scope of marriage may exercise those rights as they see fit. Churches have always been able to proceed as they wish concerning marriage ceremonies. There was no mandate to suppress religious beliefs. This should be obvious to everyone in California because of our tolerance of all religions.

That the supporters of Proposition 8 were motivated by religious beliefs cannot be denied. Now the religious beliefs of some Californians are in our Constitution and, until overturned, govern us all whether we like it or not.

My daughter has also been confronted by homophobic sentiment now that she is living in Florida. I wrote about her recent experience while she was working on an essay in her English class in support of gay marriage, when she contacted me to ask whether 'gayness' was more accepted in the north. I said yes and blamed it all on the religious bent of the Southern evangelicals. Of course, they are not alone.

Keith Olbermann dedicated a Special Comment to the issue:



To put it in the correct perspective, this whole thing brings to mind Jon Stewart's words on Gay Marriage, when I saw him in concert at the Tower Theater last year:

"I could understand gay marriage being a big issue if, say, the government was trying to make it mandatory. I can't quite wrap my head around why it's such an effective issue and why to many people care. And I know there's the religious argument that it's an abomination. But have you read the Bible? Everything is an abomination. If you read Leviticus, shellfish is an abomination. An abomination. Where's that sign at the protest? 'God hates fags...and scallops!"

The real abomination? The Churches who have intruded into the private lives of people.

(Cartoon via Matt Davies, The Journal News)

It's A New Day

From Yes We Can to We Are the Ones, Wil.i.am chronicled the Obama campaign through music.

It's a New Day celebrates the victory.

The Gift That Keeps on Giving

Like John McCain during his concession speech, McCain Ends “Classy”, Sarah Palin has been "gracious" in defeat.

Saying that the only thing she ever wanted during the campaign was a diet Coke, she denied that she was the typical Republican who likes spending other people's money, Palin Calls Her Critics "Jerks," "Cowardly". Unlike her own performance on the campaign trail, she has labeled criticism about her as “cruel and it’s mean-spirited, it’s immature, it’s unprofessional, and those guys are jerks.” Even worse, now that the snowbird has returned home to Alaska, she won't be needing all those fancy duds, so the RNC has dispatched a lawyer to retrieve the clothes and other goodies. Tensions between McCain and Palin camps come to light.

With the Democrats still basking in the euphoria of Obama's victory, the place to go for bitterness and recriminations is definitely the GOP (also known as Grumpy Old Men). And they have certainly been dishing it out. As Steve Benen notes, PUTTING AWAY THE LONG KNIVES, McCain's campaign doesn't help itself by pointing the finger at Palin. They picked her. Campbell Brown of CNN agrees:



However, after all is said & done, the real question is: What's up with Sarah?

There is no doubt that she's the gift that keeps on giving and that she will dominate the news for a while, both as an object of scorn and desire. But what of her future? Is there a Sarah Palin in our future?

According to a recent poll, 64% of Republicans pick her as the top choice for the GOP ticket in 2012. She herself has suggested that she wasn't doing this for nothing and John McCain called her "an impressive new voice" in the Republican Party. Boos mar John McCain's gracious concession as he hints it's just the beginning for Sarah Palin.

This has been a lively topic of discussion among the LLWL Gang.* One of the other Gang members and I have made a bet on whether she'll live on in infamy. Loser has to buy pizza for the office. I've placed my money on she's history. Since it will take a little time to see whether she's going to continue to provide fodder for the late night comedians (& the LLWL Gang), we plan to revisit the question on the Ides of March (March 15, 2009) to ask "Who's Sarah Palin?"

I realize that at this moment, I have the longshot spot. According to the London Daily Mail:

But Republican leaders say the election was just the beginning for Sarah Palin.

Despite coming under fire for her inexperience, insiders say she is already being groomed to run for the presidency in 2012.

She even let slip her own ambitions last week, saying in a TV interview that she’s ‘not doing all this for naught'.

And should her presidential ambitions full flat, Hollywood has also come calling.

Several top producers are vying to see if she can turn her popularity among the country’s conservatives into TV ratings.

Now Joe Biden will be filling the vacant VP job in Washington, network executives are sharpening their pitches to try and persuade her to capitalise on her new found celebrity.

Her self-mocking appearance on Saturday Night Live, with lookalike star Tina Fey and actor Alec Baldwin, only heightened Palin fever in Hollywood.

‘Any television person who sees the numbers when she appears on anything would say Sarah Palin would be great,’ said veteran morning-show producer Steve Friedman.

‘The passion she has on each side, love and hate, makes television people say, "Wow, imagine the viewership".‘

According to the Hollywood Reporter, most industry insiders believe an Oprah Winfrey-style daytime talk show will be the probable route for the 44-year-old.

They think her folksy, straight-shooting personality would be an immediate hit with the predominantly female audience.

'I see her less a variety show host like Ellen De Generes and more of a single-topic host like Tyra Banks,’ said one top TV producer.

Cable news is another possibility and perhaps easier to fit in with her day job. Mike Huckerbee, who lost out to John McCain in the Republican primaries, has just begun his own weekly show on Fox News.

One producer has even floated the idea - only half-jokingly - of taking advantage of the curiosity surrounding the entire Palin clan and their Alaska setting and packaging a reality show called ‘The Palins’ as a mixture of The Osbournes and Northern Exposure.

See also, Post Election Predictions for All News Junkies.

In the meantime, we can enjoy the fun with Sassy Sarah. Here's Letterman's The Top 10 New Revelations about Sarah Palin:





* LLWL Gang = Lady Lawyers Who Lunch (My officemates)