American Demigods.
Every entry is a guaranteed winner
The Weblog
Main Page
Lysistrata 3000
Cast & Crew
Scene 1
Scene 2
Other Things
Strange Place
Way Off Loop
See Spots Run
Barack Obama
Athenaeum Theatre
Rik Reppe
Contact Us

Friday, August 11, 2006

fulfilling my obligations

Having, just in time, made my denunciation of Joe Lieberman a couple of posts back, I must continue to fulfil my blogging responsibilities by finally making my Snakes on a Plane joke, because every blogger has to do that. Okay, here it is:

Not many people know that Snakes on a Plane is actually a sequel to the 1988 Sigourney Weaver vehicle Gorillas in the Mist.

That was it. Thank you.

previous entry next entry

Replies: 7 comments

I have to admit that's absolutely fair.

I should post something.


I received a call from Samuel L. Jackson, from your phone number, late last week. He, in his usual fashion, yelled at me and tried to threaten me into seeing Snakes on a Plane.

In retalliation, I've forwarded your contact information to "Citizens to Elect Joe Lieberman", noting that you are a highly interested donor. Given the closeness and complexity of Connecticut's senatorial election and the high costs involved in running a campaign, I'm sure they'll be calling VERY soon.

Let me note first, that I don't have a problem with believing in God, I have a problem with the smug attitude that your religion makes you a better person, and that's the vibe I've always gotten from the guy.

Like I said, there are Democrats more conservative than Lieberman, but none (other than Zell Miller) who, in the opinion of most progressives, have demonstrated such contempt for the party's liberal base as Lieberman has, repeatedly and publicly. His talking points have always mirrored Bush's and in a time when the liberal base has been hopping mad, that's not going to win you any points with the grassroots, so this little rebellion was probably inevitable. He has flat out said before his primary loss (and since, he's gotten worse) that people who criticize the war in Iraq are somehow helping Al Qaeda. That's quite simply offensive, illogical, and un-American nonsense.

It should be noted as well, that most prominent Democratic politicians, including the Clintons, and my man Barack, campaigned for him, but now feel that Connecticut Democrats made their choice and he should step aside. You're right, he could well be pissed enough to turn control over the Senate to the Republicans, as Jeffords did for the Democrats in '01, but I don't think even most of the Lamont supporters thought he'd be so petty as to run this third party campaign. You've got to understand, most grassroots liberals don't feel they have a party representing them, they think the post-Clinton Democrats have sold their interests out, and Lieberman is the poster boy for that. They want to push the party to the left, to reflect their values. Is that politically pragmatic? Quite possibly not, but the timid "me too" act of 2002 wasn't getting them anywhere either. Personally, I'd rather the Democrats went down fighting for what they believe than go down not fighting for what they don't.

And Wilmot, old man, we've been friends fourteen years, but if you can't appreciate the camp brilliance of MOTHERFUCKING SNAKES on a MOTHERFUCKING PLANE, I don't know where you went wrong...

To get back to the topic, Snakes on a Plane, I'm entirely baffled at how so much publicity is being raised over what, to me, is such a horrendously stupid movie concept. I'm assuming the push is that you take the movie for what it is, a gimmick playing up on the fear of snakes and the fear of flying, with the side dish of the fear of paying $9 to see a gimmicky, stupid movie.

Oh, ok, just asking... sorry about posting under the wrong topic, I just figured it would get lost if I posted it under the old post, a product of my poor timeliness. And I do realize your first post mentioning Lieberman was tongue-in-cheek; my question here was simply saying, "Yeah, sup wif dat?"

All that aside, his voting record has always gone with party lines, and based on analysis I've seen of Ned Lamont's platform and Lieberman's record, the war would be the only major discernable difference between the two candidates.

To me, based on what you said above (or below, by the time this posts), the worst things Joe Lieberman has done is say he believes in God (not alone), say shame on Bill Clinton for having an affair in the White House (not alone), suggest standards for the entertainment industry (he's not alone there by a long stretch), not give up his Senate seat (again, very much not alone, a la the John's in 2004 and countless others on both sides of the aisle) and not think well on his feet in a debate. I think both major parties have forgiven many who have done far worse.

The reason I ask the question, as someone who loves politics and always enjoys your perspective whether or not I agree, is that I wonder whether it was worth it for the Democrats to throw Lieberman under the bus and risk having him win his independent campaign, which in turn could put the Democrats' quest for a Congressional majority in jeopardy. The republicans weren't going to win the seat, but if the national party had kept its hands off the Connecticut senatorial election, if Lieberman had still lost, he probably wouldn't have been so irked as to run independent. Don't be surprised if control of the Senate hinges on this race- remember, in ridiculously early polling, which is hardly worth mentioning, nonetheless, Lieberman leads by something like 6 or 9 points over Lamont. This could get interesting.

First off, Pat, you're commenting on the wrong post, I was all excited to talk about Snakes on a Plane, now we're talking politics...

But anyway, understand that my "Joe Lieberman is a jerk, a complete kneebiter" etc. was meant as a light parody of the vitriol he gets on left wing blogs. Nonetheless, I absolutely understand why the left in general doesn't like him, and he doesn't like them...

It's not just Iraq, although that's not exactly an insignificant issue, Lieberman has never, in fact, ever been even a little bit popular on the left wing side of the Democratic Party. Lieberman was a founding member of the right leaning Democratic Leadership Council. (As was Bill Clinton but he was so damn charming) Hardcore liberals were extremely displeased by his selection as Al Gore's running mate, which was a sop to the religious right after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Joe's very much down with God you see, as he will tell you pretty much every five minutes. And he said on the Senate floor that Bill Clinton was a very naughty man and that God was quite irate with him. He also had a long history (like his running mate Gore before he found second life as a darling of the left) of leading the "Hollywood better clean up it's act or we smart, pious people in the government are going to do it for them" movement. While the Washington press adores Lieberman and that may well have made him a net plus for the ticket, I have no doubt that he probably pushed a few votes Ralph Nader's way. And he was a liability in many ways, like refusing to give up his Senate seat even though Conneticutt had a Republican governor who would control the seat if he won the election. And in his atrocious performance in the debate with Cheney in which Dickie made the hilarious statement that the "government had nothing to do" with his insane wealth from running Haliburton, whose primary client is of course...the United States government, and Joe did absolutely nothing to call him on it. Then he publicly said they lost because of Gore's excessive "populist rhetoric".

I doubt very much that he "staunchly supports gay marriage rights" by the way, I can't think of *any* major politicians, Democrat or Republican who do, other than maybe the mayor of San Francisco. I assume he's in favor of civil unions which is full legal sanction without the "m" word. Depending on what time of day you ask, so is George W. Bush, doesn't stop him from playing the issue for votes whenever he gets the chance. But I digress...

As for the war, it's not merely that he supports the war, many Democrats did, including arguably John "Of course I voted to give the president the authority to use force but never imagined he would abuse that authority so recklessly" Kerry. But Lieberman was an aggressive and unambiguous supporter and co-conspirator in this thoroughly misbegotten adventure, to the extent that he constantly parrots Republican talking points on the issue, that those who criticize the war are helping the terrorists. He published an editorial in the Wall Street Journal to this effect, showing total party disloyalty. Now there are other prominent Democrats who are arguably farther to the right than Lieberman, Evan Bayh and Louisiana's own Mary Landrieu come to mind, but neither of them have ever published an enditorial in the largest house organ of the conservative movement openly saying how much their fellow Democrats suck.

And now that seems to be the general theme of his independent Senate campaign, and the speeches he's making are virtually indistinguishable from those of his old opponent, Dick Cheney's.

I find the whole Joe Lieberman thing kind of strange, almost reminiscent of the Disco craze. He went from being the Vice Presidential nominee just six years ago to being treated not unlike a leper. Other than his support of the war, he's had a really consistently left voting record- from opposing Samuel Alito to staunchly supporting gay marriage rights. I don't know, but the Lieberman castigation seems a little extreme to me.

Powered By Greymatter
Weblog Main Page   |   Weblog Archives   |   L3K Cast & Crew   |   L3K Scene 1   |   L3K Scene 2   |   Contact
All rights reserved by those who feel they have to reserve things and thereby deny those things to others who might want to reserve them. This is currently the recommended method by which to affirm your personhood, if you are in any doubt.