November 13, 2008
The “Tool Watch” continues. In the days after the historic 2008 Presidential election, intrigue abounds as to the future political career of Joe “The Tool” Lieberman. Lieberman was re-elected to the Senate in 2006 as an Independent candidate (after having lost the Democratic primary to Ned Lamot). The Tool realized that his betrayal of the Democrats could result in the loss of his many important appointments, should Obama get elected. Joe had already “sold his soul” to Bush, Cheney and Rove in his quest for re-election. At that point, he had no choice but to “go for broke” by endorsing John McCain. However, The Tool went beyond that. He spoke ill of Obama at the Republican Convention. He followed McCain around throughout the Presidential campaign, giving rally speeches himself, in addition to serving as McCain’s “nodder” when McCain would question Obama’s patriotism. The Tool questioned Obama’s patriotism with his own allegations that Obama placed allegiance to the Democratic Party ahead of his allegiance to the country. The Tool evoked further outrage from Democrats by campaigning for “down ticket” Republicans, while stumping around the country for McCain and Palin. Now that Obama has been elected President, many Democrats are hungry to avenge The Tool’s malicious acts by stripping him of the appointments earned while in good standing as a member of the Democratic Party. The most notable of these is his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. President-elect Obama has expressed his desire to see Lieberman remain in the Senate Democratic Caucus. Obama has said nothing about The Tool’s numerous committee and subcommittee memberships or chairmanships. In keeping with his “No Drama Obama” image, the President-elect appears to have distanced himself from any “blood feuds” involving Lieberman.
My animosity toward The Tool is based on the fact that he is a pathetic ass-kisser. He knew that his committee appointments would be in jeopardy in the event of an Obama victory. Accordingly, he didn’t simply endorse John McCain. He followed McCain around as a stray dog, looking for a new home. Those of us with the experience of having worked with such people, know that these individuals don’t deserve much in the way of respect. One of the reasons we enjoy watching “action movies” is because the “ass-kisser” is usually the first person to get killed (by either the hero or the villain). It seems as though justice and karma are well-served in these movies, when such cretins get their due.
Many people who consider themselves “liberal Democrats” seem anxious to make The Tool an example for future, would-be defectors. On November 12, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow expressed her concern that the Lieberman case could set a precedent, regardless of what action the Senate Democrats might take in light of The Tool’s transgressions. Her November 10 program included an interview with Steve Clemons of The Washington Note website. Mr. Clemons suggested removing Lieberman from his chairmanship of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs because of the The Tool’s fear mongering on the subject of homeland security throughout the 2008 campaign. Clemons emphasized the proposition that Lieberman should not be able to use homeland security or national security as a foundation to batter Democrats who want a smarter national security policy.
Rachel Maddow discussed this subject again on November 12, with Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. Senator Bayh discussed the possibility that Lieberman might be unwilling to suffer the indignity of being stripped of his appointments and thus relegated to the status of backbencher. Bayh worried that under such circumstances, The Tool might self-destruct: resign from the Senate and allow Connecticut’s Republican Governor (Jodi Rell) to appoint a “pure Republican” to replace Lieberman. To Bayh, this would be a more undesirable alternative than putting up with a traitor. His logic seems based on the rationale that because Lieberman is such a tool, the Democrats could make him their tool once again. Bayh suggested a two-part compromise. First, Lieberman should be allowed to retain his chairmanship of the Committee on Homeland Security with “oversight”. Bayh pointed out that a committee chairman could be replaced at any time. If those overseeing The Tool reached the conclusion that he should be ousted, it would only then become appropriate for such action. The second part of Bayh’s proposed compromise would involve an apology from Lieberman for his antics during the 2008 campaign. I would like to suggest another alternative. In the event Lieberman might be unwilling to make such an apology, the Senate Democrats should demand that The Tool have the word “Craftsman” tattooed on his forehead.
Money Falling From The Sky
November 17, 2008
The debate concerning a possible bailout of the “big three” automakers (General Motors, Ford and Daimler Chrysler) has now reached the House of Representatives. House Minority Leader, John Boehner (Republican from Ohio) has voiced his opposition to this latest bailout, indicating that it will not receive much support from Congressional Republicans.
In the words of Yogi Berra, we are experiencing “déjà vu all over again”. This process started with the plan of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, to bail out banks and other financial intuitions holding mortgages of questionable value, at a price to the taxpayers in excess of $700 billion. Back on September 22, when that bailout bill (now known as TARP) was being considered, Jackie Kucinich and Alexander Bolton wrote an article for TheHill.com, discussing Republican opposition to this measure. Their article included a prophetic remark by Republican Congressman Cliff Stearns of Florida:
Yet, “bailout after bailout” is exactly where we are now. On November 15, T-Bone Pickings appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press. Tom Brokaw asked T-Bone Pickings for his opinion on the proposed “Big Three Bailout”. The response was:
Once again, we are presented with the need to bail out yet another American industry considered “too big to fail”. However, this time, we are not being asked to save an entire industry, just a few players who fought like hell, resisting every change from rear-view mirrors, to fuel injection, seat belts, catalytic converters, air bags and most recently, hybrid technology. Later on Meet the Press, we heard the BBC’s Katty Kay quote a rhetorical question from unidentified “smart economists” that included the magic word:
Later on the CBS program, Face The Nation, Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, used similar logic to that expressed by Katty Kay, when he stated:
The magic word “shock” is once again playing an important role for the advocates of this newest rescue package. I was immediately compelled to re-read my posting from September 22, concerning the introduction of the Paulson bailout plan, entitled: “Here We Go Again”. At that time, I discussed Naomi Klein’s 2007 book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Klein’s book explained how unpopular laws were enacted in a number of countries around the world, as a result of shock from disasters or upheavals. She went on to suggest that some of these events were deliberately orchestrated with the intent of passing repugnant laws in the wake of crisis. She made an analogy to shock therapy, wherein the patient’s mind is electrically reformatted to become a “blank slate”. Klein described how advocates of “the shock doctrine” seek a cataclysmic destruction of economic order to create their own “blank slate” upon which to create their vision of a “free market economy”. She described the 2003 Iraq war as the most thorough utilization of the shock doctrine in history. Remember that this book was released a year before the crises we are going through now.
Ms. Klein’s article, “In Praise of a Rocky Transition” appeared in the December 1, 2008 issue of The Nation. She discussed Washington’s handling of the Wall Street bailout, characterizing it as “borderline criminal”. Would the financial rescue legislation (TARP) have passed if Congress and the public had been advised that the Federal Reserve had already fed a number of unnamed financial institutions two trillion dollars in emergency loans? Naomi Klein expressed the need for the Obama Administration to stick with its mantra of “Change You Can Believe In” as opposed to any perceived need to soothe the financial markets:
The Obama Administration would be wise to heed Ms. Klein’s suggestions. It would also help to seriously consider the concerns of Republicans such as John Boehner, who is apparently not anxious to feed America another “crap sandwich”.