You know there are many things to dislike about this deal with Lieberman. But you know what, as much as we despise the deal, the Senate Democrats were entitled to do what they wanted. I would have preferred they made their votes public so we can know who to  boycott for donations. This diary is not about the stupdity or cowardice in rewarding lieberman with the chairmanship. This is about how the Democratic senators have been treating Joe and referring to him as a fellow Democrat. And how Democrats have made it tougher for a legitimate Democratic challenger who follows all the rules to beat Lieberman in 2012.

But Harry Reid crossed the line, my friends, when he referred to Joe Lieberman as a democrat. This is not a trivial statement. This is a lot more offensive than merely giving him the chairmanship when we needed him for a majority. That was a practical deal. Calling him a democrat on the heels of a shameless vote is going beyond practicality and actually shunning democratic processes. That is a slap in the face of all the democrats that voted against him the Democratic Primary. WHY HAVE A FUCKING PRIMARY IF YOU AS A PARTY ELDER HAS NO INTENTION OF RESPECTING IT? Lieberman got elected as a senator from CT and he is entitled to it as unsavory as that election was. But once he declined to honor the results of the Democratic Primary, he ceased to be a Democrat no matter who he ended up caucusing with. And there is a difference between a senator striking a deal with Lieberman for practical purposes and Democratic senators actually treating him like he is still a Democratic senator and he had to just overcome an additional hurdle which was something insignificant to them like the will of the Democratic party voters.

My question is this. It is widely known that most of the Democratic Party senators wanted Lieberman to win the general election against Lamont. People like Obama supported Lamont only because they didnt want to risk the wrath of angry democratic voters. If the primary only attracts fringe voters in the minds of these democrats (funny how they dont mind primaries when they are running as aspiring senators), why not scrap primaries when there is a democratic incumbent? Why not nominate challengers to incumbents only if the party elders dictate so and be done with the pretense that primaries mean something.

Making deals with Lieberman to invite him into the caucus doesnt invalidate a primary when you need him for a majority because the status of the inclusion is clearcut. But when you do it needlessly, you are getting closer. And when you make such comments on top of such a questionable move and combine that with behavior by the likes of Bill Clinton on Larry King(doesnt matter if it's lieb or lamont) or other senators giving him standing ovation during the lamont fight(pretty much saying "good ole boy, just find a way to get back here, and nothing will change, fuck the masses"), you definitely have achieved the same result as that of a primary having never taken place.

This is not just the lieberman issue. This is a warning to any Democratic voting block that they dare not fuck with a Democratic incumbent because they will ignore your vote and do whatever it takes to welcome future spoilsport incumbents.

There are a few senators that fight the good fight. But after seeing the behavior of senators from both parties, I don't hav confidence in their courage and principles.

Lawrence O Donnell was on Rachel Maddow show talking to Arianna.
One of his statements which I paraphrase loosely.
"Committee chairpersons are never evaluated on their performance."

Wow, not exactly a shocker, but when you hear someone who served as a chief of staff say that without any reservation, it really sinks in how the senators for the most part do not give a crap about the people. They are in it for their fraternity of senators.

"Homeland Security" is not even considered an important committee.

Seriously? So isn't that all the more reason why Democrats who are in a compromising mood feel emboldened to remove him of that and give him another committee? Instead Dodd and Salazar - Dodd will get no support from me the next time Republicans expose one of his financial scandals- come up with an insulting compromise that spits on the face of every concerned Democratic Party activist when they propose stripping Lieberman of some no name committee and let him retain Homeland Security.

Say what?? Why not just crap on our heads and get on with business as usual in the senate? Here is a link to a discussion of that proposal:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1 1/18/858/95471/442/662652

Now you got my favorite Senate dunce pretty boy - Evan Bayh aka Ferris Bueller's clueless dad. He, in my opinion, gave either a really naive stupid interview with Maddow or a very dishonest one where he said that Lieberman should apologize to them and what he said about Obama and others in the past crossed the line. But Bayh was careful enough never to link that apology explicitly to retaining the chairpersonship of that committee. We KNOW Lieberman will never give an apology of that type. So why would Evan Bayh say they need one? Because he was just trying to say something to save face on Maddow, not because he believed in it. The guy is a Democratic version of Dan Quayle. I could not believe it when some of our fellow Democrats were touting this idiot(I always felt that way about him, this is not hindsight talking) as potential President or VP.

Remember when the Bushies gave us the "WE MUST DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW OR ALL HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE" message and quite a few of the DEmocrats lapped it up like it was the right thing to do? There were dissenting people of both parties that tried to talk some sense into waiting an extra week or month if necessary to hammer out a more meaningful bailout that would attach some meaningful conditions. Guess what. They treasury still doesn't have a plan on how to spend all 700B. Wait, ,hasn't it been a couple of months? So isn't armageddon upon us according to their predictions? And if what they said was indeed true, and we will be paying for this delay, why aren't both party members showing more urgency on this?

From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/11/12/AR2008111202846. html?hpid=topnews

Along the way, the Bush administration has committed $290 billion of the $700 billion rescue package.

Yet for all this activity, no formal action has been taken to fill the independent oversight posts established by Congress when it approved the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste. Nor has the first monitoring report required by lawmakers been completed, though the initial deadline has passed.

"It's a mess," said Eric M. Thorson, the Treasury Department's inspector general, who has been working to oversee the bailout program until the newly created position of special inspector general is filled. "I don't think anyone understands right now how we're going to do proper oversight of this thing."

In approving the rescue package, lawmakers trumpeted provisions in the legislation that established layers of independent scrutiny, including a special inspector general to be nominated by the White House and a congressional oversight panel to be named by lawmakers themselves.
ad_icon

Some lawmakers and their aides fear that political squabbling on Capitol Hill and bureaucratic logjams could delay their work for months. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office, which also has some oversight responsibilities, is worried about the difficulty of hiring people who can understand the intensely complicated financial work involved.
.............

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, is also required by the legislation to conduct oversight of the program. The agency's mission is to look at the overall performance of the initiative and its effect on the financial system.

The GAO has dedicated about 20 people to look at the bailout and has office space at the Treasury Department. Agency officials said they expect to issue a brief report on the program, as mandated by the legislation, within the next month.

The legislation also created a body called the Financial Stability Oversight Board, whose five members include Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke. But it has no staff of its own, and few expect that policymakers can conduct oversight of themselves. "It's sort of a joke in terms of oversight," a congressional aide said.

Granted, the major fault lies with the Bush administration on the 700B bailout. But the point is that the Democrats said they had to compromise quickly because we needed a bailout immediately and what has happened since then? No immediate bailout anyway. Democrats should have just called bluff on the Bushies and taken their time to come up with a better proposal.
It is politics as usual. Neither party has what it takes to do the dirty work to get something done all the way.

Now you got Democrats pandering over the auto bailout. Pelosi's body language doesnt indicate a smidgen of outrage in how the auto industry messed up on its own. She wants to help it because it is the "right thing" to do. Obama indicates the same stuff. Where is the outrage over management of the big Three? There seems to be a desperation to save the auto industry because the unions form a huge voting bloc for our party. Why aren't the DEmocrats thinking of putting some money into retraining some of our autoworkers? There are skills that are transferable. What is the point of an auto bailout if there is no long term fix? Didn't we have a bailout for them just months ago? What were the conditions back then and have they been satisfied? I don't think they have been, if any were imposed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/13 /democrats-telegraphing-up_n_143497.html

There are provisions for some government ownership of auto stock in exchange for the loans. Who the hell wants to own worthless stock anyway because that stock will be worthless in the future when they need one more bailout. I did not see one mention in that article about more accountability from management and some need for changing management. The Ford family can sell off the Lions and use that money to fund the Ford motor company. The GM execs who make  millions can take massive paycuts and still earn more than a senior engineer and some of that money could help be pooled into keeping whatever unemployment or pension fund healthy.

Oh here's the beauty. Theere are some suggestions for the government to share in the profits before it benefits the shareholders. All those execs will do is steal some of those profits with some undeserved bonuses before it gets termed as a profit.

No accountability. Before the Democrats talk about increasing taxes for anyone, or restoring taxes to some pre Bush levels, they freaking need to learn how to spend OUR money like it is their personal income.

P.S.: I don't think I have to say that I have no confidence in the Republicans either. It is just that I expect more from the DEmocrats.

Dean continues to be the epitome of pure class. He was on Chris Matthews and gave such a selfless interview where he declined to take any credit for Obama's performance. His point was that his and the DNC's role was merely to prepare the electoral areas for a good candidate to take advantage of. Their role was to set the ground and the candidate's role was to exploit it for a win. That 50 State Strategy was a long term one that has paid dividends. People like Obama took it to the next level.

But let us not forget Dean who started it all. Dean was the voice that made the Naders insignificant players in the role of spoilers. Let us hope we keep getting more new blood that uses the existing establishment to learn the ropes and then tosses the deadwood aside when the right time comes.

Dean also made a gracious comment about Republicans having good ideas too and that he has no problem sharing that. When was the last time you heard that from an RNC guy with their smug pronouncements about the radical left and those east coast liberals?

Here is a link thanks to Hughsterg. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27561541#27561541

Even Chris Matthews was so impressed that he felt the need to remind us that Dean was the one that started it all. You rarely see mainstream pundits give Dean that credit.

Nearly two years ago, I remember how MYDD would be inundated by frequent discussion of polls as if those numbers should drive the essence of which candidate was the best for us. A lot of candidate supporters(especially Hillary's) would  bring up polls and spend most of their time using these numbers in assessing hypothetical McCain-Obama or Hillary-Obama or Guiliani-Hillary or other matchups. A lot of these would favor Hillary as our candidate instead of Obama. People would be touting these polls as some sort of definitive statement as to who we should nominate. A lot of the arguments against Obama would use these useless polls as their main reason.

Two years later, you can see how stupid those discussions were. I have said it before and I will say it again. F*** electability arguments unless you get to the final stage. Do not play amateur pollster because you are wasting my time and your time. The only thing that should have mattered was who was our best candidate. All those numbers touted back then had NO bearing at all on this election. The only time the numbers became interesting was when the campaign started getting to the final stages. We went ahead and nominated Obama anyway and HE TROUNCED MCCAIN. He WON BIG!!!!! All those national poll numbers from a year ago or even 6 months ago?? WHO THE HELL CARES? He won nearly 340 electoral college seats. FL??? He won that decisively. OH? Even that. PA? He gave a McCain-Palin an ass kicking they wont forget.

It's OK to indulge in fun poll watching. They make for fun discussions. But do not make them the focus of the worthiness of a candidate, especially two years in advance. Because it will make you look stupid in the future.

I voted in the 2004 elections. I didn't vote in the 2008 primaries because of a last minute scheduling snafu.
I was primed to vote for this historic election. But I just checked my status on the GA site - http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/pollloc ator/PollLocator.aspx
and do not find a match for my information. How the hell did my name get removed from the list? Is there any recourse? I am headed to the poll location anyway. I hope my name is on the list.

Voting should not have to be this hard. If a person can vote without ID, why the hell do I need to keep reregistering even if I have not changed my address in the last 10 years and I continue to pay taxes. Shouldn't they tie the voter registration with our license or some other government card so that we shouldn't have to register more than once?

If I haven't changed my address, and the state and county continues to collect my taxes, but sees fit to remove my name off the rolls, then maybe they think I do not exist anymore. So maybe I should not have to pay their freaking taxes too anymore. But nooo, they will have no problem recognizing me as a taxpayer when it comes to tax time.

I need some clarification on this issue. Obama said everyone making less than $250,000 will get tax breaks. I take this to assume that if you make $260,000, you will still get a tax break on the first 250,000 and will only pay higher taxes on any income greater than that.

So when Joe the Plumber approaches Obama and complains about having to pay higher taxes because the business he is buying makes more than $250,000, is he referring to revenue or net income? If it's just revenue, what does it matter to him? His net income will still be less than $250,000 after paying all salaries.

If Joe does end up earning more than $250,000 net income, that tells me two things:

1. Joe will be a rich guy. So why whine like he is some middle class guy.
   
2. Joe will only be paying a higher rate on that part of his net income greater than 250K. Update [2008-10-16 3:43:55 by Pravin]: I just saw some article where they interviewed him. He seems aware of this. Why would he forgo buying a business just because of a 3% marginal tax difference on anything more than 250,000(36% under McCain, 39% under Obama). He is still getting a tax cut on the first 250,000. I think Obama should have made this point clearer in the debate. And Joe obviously has no clue about the difference between revenue and profits.

Am I wrong on both assumptions? Even if I am wrong on one of these two, Joe still ends up with pretty good money.

I just didn't think Obama explained it very well in the debate if I am correct in at least one of these assumptions.

McCain is someone who can be easily baited to bring up certain things. We can be sure that McCain will try to make some kind of reference to Ayers. First Obama should quickly shoot it down by saying that there were republicans associated with him then. And that if he went by every aquaintance or peer in McCain's life whether in the army or in politics, he cannot guarantee he never associated with a racist who condoned Jim Crow laws back in the day and hatred towards a segment of America is hatred of America itself.

Then Obama could just say why McCain selected a VP whose husband was a member of a party that puts Alaska ahead of the nation. And why she gave videotaped speeches for this organization on at least one occasion.