the certifigate kabuki crusade

when someone hides something, they have something to hide! i believe that obama’s original birth certificate will prove that he is NOT eligible to serve as president.

one of the entertaining sub-narratives running through the certifigate™ "controversy" tells of the epic struggle undertaken by barack "the usurper" obama and his brainwashed minions to forever keep his birth records — if they indeed exist at all — away from public scrutiny, especially scrutiny from the tireless, free, god-fearing, constitution-loving natural-born™ patriots of hardcore right-wing blog free republic.

after all, inescapable logic forces all rational citizens to conclude that ...

... there's no legitimate reason for obama not to simply release the document in question and put all this to bed. no president should begin his term with any cloud of doubt surrounding his legitimacy.

i am content to see how president obama reacts when foreigners start yanking his chain knowing how sensitive the birth certificate issue is -- else why doesn't he just release the standard form of his birth certificate.

you see, our most conscientious protectors of freedom are only concerned for the integrity of the incoming administration — for obama's sake. because this entire controversy is all of his own making!

this whole debate is unnecessary. obama should be made to show proof he was born in the US.

just show us the standard little-people form of your birth certificate and end this crazy stuff, mr. obama. TIA. (fat chance)

... he spends hundreds of thousands of dollars arguing the plaintiffs have no standing. i think he should spend the $12 and get a certified copy of the original long for birth certificate and present it at a news conference. what is he hiding? i make no claim that obama was not born in hawaii, but his strategy makes no sense to me from a legal standpoint.

once again the question arises: why would someone spend $800,000 to keep from producing a $24 document?

why aren't you asking the simplest questions, like: why doesn't he just do this, with so much riding on it? why spend upwards of a million dollars fighting the release of a $10 document?

he has spent somewhere around $1mil using 3 law firms fighting against showing his long form birth certificate. the only BC he has shown was on his dailykos web site and it was proven a forgery by no less than 3 experts. his word means nothing either.

(uh-oh ... did the great orange figurehead just get outed?)

if all the states enact requirements to produce a valid BC,will all the candidates spend in excess of 1 million dollars in each state to avoid the laws?

of course, the well-informed already know full well that there's no way in hell the usurper can ever release those records:

if it is so legit, why doesn't his legal team submit the "public" certificate of live birth to courts? would submitting a forgery be grounds for disbarment?

the constitution is nothing, if it is ignored. obama can resolve this by requesting hawaii send his certified long form birth certificate to congress. he won't. he knows he wasn't constitutionally eligible and so do a lot more politicians and judges who are just going along. it is a SAD day for the republic.

he can't make it go away.... he has no original BC to make it go away.

well, since one of his close advisers is ex CIA higher up, and had a look at his passport files illegally, i'd say a well made forgery is about to be sprung upon the courts. that is likely the reason he has stonewalled for so long, getting the best forgery money can buy and getting it into the vault in hawaii. the internet forgery could not be used to stand before a court so the new forgery must be so close to perfect that it will pass scrutiny. and many of the sheeple will exhale a sigh of relief even if they suspect the forgery. you know there are nine black robed oligarchs who will be relieved if he presents a really good forgery!

the obamanoids never address the most obvious question: if obama would produce a document for factcheck and his campaign website, why is he spending so much money resisting presenting the document to a court of law? ... i answer that by stating the obvious, he's afraid that the forgery will then be open for authentication and he cannot allow that even if he spends millions to keep it from a court's hands. he's spent close to a million sending lawyers and detectives to bury every scrap of daocumentation from his adult life. there is a very deep and abiding reason for such behavior, and it isn't aimed at being ‘open and transparent'.

this flattering fiction, of obama fighting certifigate™ with tooth and nail and tons of cold hard cash, of course ignores two cavernous plot holes. first, in common with most state policies for handling vital records, hawaii state law prohibits access to certified copies of anyone's birth and death certificates — not just obama's — to those unable to demonstrate standing to see them:

[hawaii state health director dr. chiyome] fukino, however, repeated the health department's position that state law prohibits her or any other officials from actually releasing the birth certificate, which obama's campaign says shows he was born in honolulu on aug. 4, 1961. "there have been numerous requests for sen. barack hussein obama's official birth certificate," fukino said in the statement. "state law (hawai'i revised statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. ... no state official, including gov. linda lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the state of hawai'i."

so i think we can safely conclude that "persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record" would include — you guessed it — freepers.

effort required on obama's behalf: zero.

second, none of the court filings pending or already dismissed (numbering at least ten thus far) have legally required any response whatsoever from obama or any of his representatives. he's not even named as a defendant in most suits. accordingly, there's been no reported pushback from the obama side — that isn't an unsourced talking point from freeperville. there's not a single shred of evidence that a single case has been anything but routinely ignored, thereby incurring not the expenditure of a single cent in fees, nor a single drop of ink, nor a single second of thought, much less a single molecule of sweat, on obama's behalf.

effort required: zero.

if anyone's been working up a sweat, it's the freepers. our stalwart heroes have been swatting at empty air the whole time, in a magnificent kabuki crusade, which, to be honest, is the only kind of crusade these keyboard commandoes know how to wage.

and some of the rank-and-file have started to notice:

i've tried to get this information on how much was spent on any of these cases and i can't find anyone who can document this. i've heard assertions, but they were always absent any documentation or even any rationale. i would like to see that documentation that outlines who spent what and where ...

well, the research indicates that people are guessing. that's all that is going on with those figures. once someone gets some documentation (which they haven't, and which is why it doesn't exist), then we'll be able to tell. at this point in time, we've got nothing but people speculating. another interesting thing that i saw, was that one poster was embellishing on another poster's figures. if it was one hundred thousand for a few days or a week, then it started to be two hundred thousand. then someone else would post three hundred thousand, and on it would go. finally it cleared one million dollars ... LOL... it was sort of like telling the story in another person's ear and they would pass it on. the last person had a story that in no way resembled the original story that started it all. that's what i've seen of those figures and that "one million dollars"... :-)

... but hearing such arguments mouthed by purported fellow freepers only further demonstrates the frightening reach and magnitude of the usurper's desperate, all-encompassing machinations!

... what does this little platoon of deceivers say about the obama that he needs deceivers workign the internet to deflect people from the truth about his deciets?

i am starting to think you are a TEAM of obama lovers and/or constitutional haters who roam this site looking for BC threads. ... this is our ball and we are going to finish this game. no one picked you for the team. go home.

you are useless as a FReeper and an american.

waver not, faithful freepi, for we have the usurper on the run! how the bards shall sing of our victories!

no, it'll be a white dinosaur

uh-oh, here comes the creation museum of presidential archives:

as president george w bush eyes his legacy, his presidential library at southern methodist university in dallas, texas, threatens to be a white elephant. bush has bought a $3m (£2.05m) house in a republican enclave 10 minutes away from his proposed library and hopes to play an active role in the policy institute that will be established there. with his approval ratings at a record low of 20%, according to a cbs poll, he is keenly interested in shaping the verdict of history. "i'd like to be ... known as somebody who liberated 50m people and helped achieve peace," bush said in a recent interview. laura bush said last week that she saw the policy institute as a "great vehicle" for continuing her support for women's rights in afghanistan and the middle east. work on the $300m library will begin in january, overseen by the architect robert stern, dean of the yale school of architecture. the identity of donors has been kept secret from bush, who established a "don't ask, don't tell" policy about their names after the sunday times revealed in july that a top republican donor was touting access to senior administration officials in return for donations of up to $250,000. so far, fundraising has been "very modest", according to dan bartlett, a former senior white house aide and spokesman for the library. ... "all of them are white elephants to some degree. they are truly bizarre," said benjamin hufbauer, art history professor at the university of louisville in kentucky. "more than half of them are grave sites, like lenin's tomb, although they don't display the body." despite their propagandist function, the libraries provide valuable access to archives that show the president "warts and all", according to hufbauer. but after 9/11 bush signed an executive order granting presidents the right to withhold documents held in the libraries from the public. historians hope barack obama will overturn this. conservatives are already engaging in a fierce battle over bush's legacy. john o'sullivan, a former adviser to baroness thatcher who is based at the hudson institute in washington dc, writes in the new issue of national review, a conservative publication, that bush turned out to be "neither a conservative nor a right-wing radical". ... bruce bartlett, a former republican treasury official who was ostracised for writing a critique of bush in his book impostor in 2006, said: "bush is going to go down as one of the worst presidents in history. a lot of conservatives kept their mouths shut at the time because they didn't want to be crucified like me. "i thought bush would have to go a long way to beat richard nixon and herbert hoover but, at the last minute, he pushed the ball across the line and brought on the new great depression." presidential libraries are built with private money, but the national archive pays for the staff who maintain the papers. "personally, i think it's inappropriate for the taxpayer to run these temples of worship," said bartlett. ...

who shall wake the sleeper?

desperate times call for desperate measures. with the passing of each ill-spent day, barry "the usurper" hussein obama takes yet one more unchecked step towards the most powerful elected office in the world. thus far, all instruments brandished against him — those legal and those holy — have fallen, shattered, as he charges ahead, undaunted.

perhaps consummate evil can only be met with consummate evil. perhaps the only means left for free men to save this blessed country and its most sacred constitution is to make a deal with one devil in order to cast out another. perhaps it is time for all natural-born™ citizens, for the continued life of our most cherished institutions, to step beyond those institutions, for this one crucial moment in history. perhaps it is time to once again raise from its dusty vaults a sleepy thing only spoken of among an almost vanished race of legal adepts, a thing only spoken of in guarded whispers. perhaps the day has come to stir and unleash:

the 13th amendment:

if any citizen of the united states shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the united states, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.

what's that you say? you thought the 13th amendment abolished slavery?

that is what the undeserving powers-that-be want you to think.

the all-but-forgotten truth is that the anti-slavery clause that we now call the "13th" amendment is naught but a changling — a foundling bastard swapped in place of the legitimate offspring!

since the unlawful deletion of the 13th amendment, the newly developing bar associations began working diligently to create a system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility as “esquires” and received the “honor” of offices and positions (like district attorney or judge) that only lawyers may now hold.

the significance of this missing 13th amendment and its deletion from the constitution is this: since the amendment was never lawfully nullified, it is still in full force and effect and is the law of the land.

thus, having never received a properly consecrated burial, this wretched clause still anxiously haunts the constitutional netherworld, waiting for the day when righteous men might grant it life and power.

and what unholy power might this amendment hold over "the usurper"?

this missing amendment might provide a legal basis to challenge many existing laws and court decisions previously made by lawyers who were unconstitutionally elected or appointed to their positions of power; it might even mean the removal of lawyers from our current government system.

ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaselordgodalmighty... for just this one time in the hour of the country's greatest need, and in the name of all that is free and natural-born™, grant america the power it needs to forever defeat "the usurper" ...

... or, at least the means to kill all the lawyers:

sounds like a supreme court case in the making if true.

but you know congress would immediately move “fix” the problem.

i've wondered about the deal where lawyers are "officers of the court". if they're "officers of the court" then they're beholden to the judicial branch of government, right? so, why are they then allowed to serve in the other two branches, legislative and executive?

if it could be prioven to be authentic then perhaps whoever hand copied the document may have left 13 out and instead of redoing it eliminated it completely so they would not have to redo the documents. imho it was needed and would’ve saved us from some of the worst leaders we’ve had.

(lord save us from lazy stenographers ...)

i have long held the opinion that a law degree should be grounds for immediate disqualification from public office.

lawyers, being the lowest form of human life, are so low they have to look up to see down. do you know how many lawyer jokes there are? NONE, they are all true.

if the constitution doesn't prohibit lawyers from holding public office, it certainly should. aside from their ability to convince the dumb ass citizen to believe what they say, especially what they promise in a political campaign, is there an argument as to lawyers greed for material and power being at the CORE of the death of our constitution's original intent? that statement is based on the fact that MOST politicians that end up in dc are schooled in law.

"honest politician", now that's a joke.

the recent references to "princess caroline" and her bid to take hillary's senate seat made me wonder about this amendment. does she in fact have the title "princess"? does it strip her citizenship?

the "messiah" had best be careful with that label ... even if he is an illegal alien from kenya and a major league commie scam artist.

meanwhile, let all true patriots ignore the timid and those of little faith:

that is a great question. unfortunately every lawyer or lawyer in black robes will consider it and reject it in about 10 seconds.

they will probably tell you that you have no standing that would allow you to challenge the status quo. after all, you are probably just a citizen. what do you know?

another amendment? to WHAT constitution. ... do we have one of those????

i know things were a little backward in the early 1800’s, but i think if there were a ratified amendment to the constitution, someone would made a note of it. even it were scratched in wood somewhere.

i think it’s part of an attempt to make FR ["fr" = free republic] look like a bunch of whackos.

this is one of the stupidest articles i’ve read in a while. a license to practice law is no more a title of nobility than a license to practice medicine, a license to install electrical service, a license to sell firearms, or a license to cut hair.

there was such an amendment proposed, but it was never ratified, although some publishers did erroneously print it. in any event, it was never intended to keep lawyers out of government, because "esquire" is not a "title of nobility."

when the queen of england conferred upon me the title of esquire at my law school graduation i was promised no one would ever find the suppressed 13th amendment. now that the secret is out that we’re all foreign nobility i will lose my state job. thanks a lot. oh well, i guess i’ll just live on the revenues from my estate in kent. at least obama is out of the whilte house. cheerio!

... and lastly, pray that this legal witchcraft works a little better than the time it was unleashed — on knight of the british empire sir rudy giuliani ...

deep thought

if gore had won, we'd all be discussing the lieberman transition picks.

the limits of science

no flowers, no candy ...

... no statue, no plaza, no boulevard.

no permanent bases. no usurious resource contracts. no puppet-state.

just shoes.

still, it's less than he deserves.

ianal*

well, i don't know about your weekend, but mine certainly lived up to all its hype. it was an absolutely perfect weekend for popcorn and freeper-watching ...

... easily the best since the election. on friday in "the supremes and the certificate" we got to see the hopes and dreams of all freeperville swell to symphonic heights as news of a dismissal of leo donofrio's supreme court application regarding president-elect obama's eligibility for office was not forthcoming, and for that day no news was indeed good news.

on sunday in "still room under the bus" we got to watch the long knives come out for campus thought-cop david horowitz, who penned a diatribe against "obama derangement syndrone" and urged his fellow conservatives to "shut up about the birth certificate". i don't think all his remains have been found and it doesn't sound like he'll be missed.

finally, on monday in "denied w/o comment" we got to see the whole sideshow come crashing down, as expected. quite honestly, for a club that worships manliness in all its most hyper-stereotyped forms, they certainly do love tearing up the aisles in their finest drama gowns.

so having just watched the summary disposal of first application for an audience before the supremes, what's left for a committed patriot to do in order to prevent a marxist communist muslim terrorist from turning the country into a caliphate forestall an impending constitutional crisis?

strategize, strategize, strategize!

this post at hardcore right-wing blog free republic pretty much speaks for itself [emphases mine]:

i met with my family attorney today for 3 hours to discuss family issues. the last 30 minutes he discussed the obama lawsuits. he is approximately 60 years old and has been practicing law full time for over 30 years.

he said that, despite popular opinions, the supreme court are not a group of predominantly liberal justices. in is opinion, the problem with the lawsuits is that if they reject the first one or two suits (donofrio and berg, for example) based on an unclear definition of what constitutes a "natural born citizen", then the precedent will established to dismiss future cases addressing the same point as the major thrust of their case.

so i have been WRACKING my brain trying to determine what would make a case with an alternate motive that might be considered worthy of a court hearing since the current ones are being denied and getting EXTREMELY critical reviews from the mass media.

i am not an attorney so my propositions set forth are just rudimentary ideas and ideally "viable" alternatives.

can someone make a case that barack obama is NOT the legal name of the representative the democratic national committee has nominated as their presidential candidate ?

by definition, nominate itself has its etymological derivation from the latin word for name ( nominatus, from nomin, nomen name )

basically, if the dnc has not fully verifying the legal name of their elected nominee, dnc could be guilty of falsely promoting a candidate with an illegal name.

can this be a form of "misrepresentation" — or "fraud" or "aiding and abetting" in promoting an illegal candidate. can they be liable for such a claim ? can they at least be indicted for this ?

most legal scholars familiar with these cases (including berg and many others) seem to agree that barry soetoro is mr. obama's "REAL, LEGAL" name !

many suspect that the reason all of the "unavailable" records of mr. obama's past are because he attended college as a foreign student ! didn't college affiliates refer to him as barry soetoro ?

ALL of hidden records might be hiding the same thing ! His REAL NAME !

1. occidental college records - not released
2. columbia college records - not released
3. columbia thesis paper - not available
4. harvard college records - not released
5. selective service registration - not released
6. medical records - not released
7. illinois state senate schedule - not available
8. your illinois state senate records - not available
9. certified copy of original birth certificate - not released
10. embossed, signed paper certification of live birth - not released
11. any articles you published as editor of the harvard law review, or as a professor at the university of chicago - not available.

can the question of his TRUE identity be used as an alternate argument for a lawsuit to get the court to order his birth certificate, hidden passports, and ideally, the additional records listed above ?

didn't mr. obama sign an application to take the bar exam affirming that he has no other name other than "barack obama" ? or is this another SEALED document ?

if no charge is made other than to VERIFY mr. obama's name, perhaps the courts would look more favorably on an application like this as opposed to one that is demanding and insisting that he is constitutionally unqualified to be our president. and if a case like this is heard, then others can argue as to citizenship later, or possibly claim that a 740 million dollar campaign was based on FRAUDULENT information.

instead of suing obama, can one elect to sue nancy pelosi ? she is the one who signed a certification that mr. obama was qualified to run for president ?

can one make the case that she is liable for proving his constitutional eligibility ?

i just cannot imagine that NOT ONE hospital or facility in hawaii can verify that mr. obama was born ANYWHERE in hawaii and ALL of the democrats (along with the mass media) are accusing the plaintiffs of these cases as 'chasing the wind' ! KILLS ME !

can one sue nancy pelosi and insist that she MUST supply the name of the hospital or facility where mr. obama was delivered, and in the event of her inability to prove such, then the real birth certificate would have to ordered by the court as evidence ?

can either the unverifiable name of the candidate or the lack of evidence of hawaii being his birthplace be used as grounds that a "misuse of campaign funds" is in question ? there are laws that govern both the acceptance and use of campaign funds and if there is evidence that these funds were misused, maybe the dnc would be liable to answer to such claims ?

reading and hearing these UNFAVORABLE reviews in the news is BEYOND DISHEARTENING ! i think we are in need of alternate ideas to reach our objective....THE TRUTH !

this is a quote from an msn.com ap article from december 8, 2008:

"at least one other appeal over obama's citizenship remains at the court. philip j. berg of lafayette hill, pa., argues that obama was born in kenya, not hawaii as obama says and the hawaii secretary of state has confirmed."

did the hawaiian s of s actually confirm this ? or is this a misquote? i would think this would be 'breaking news' if it were true.

one last comment, did ANYONE ever see the "backstage" footage from 2004 keyes-obama debate that was posted (and shortly removed) on YOUTUBE where obama allegedly answered keyes question on his citizenship with "that's ok, i am running for senator, not for president" ! this is not in any transcripts nor in the tv footage, but was recorded by a private individual off the main camera set. if anyone has seen this, they might be able to retrieve it on their computer via the "RESTORE" or "GO BACK" feature. It would be a CRUCIAL piece of evidence.

*shudder*

ugh — i would hate to be stuck inside this person's poor skull, with all that cramped, clammy, restless squirming gray matter flopping about all over itself like a slimy knot of vipers. and like the infernal itching coming out of that cesspit of stupid, having to face the too-quickly-approaching-reality of a president and commander-in-chief barack-you're-driving-me-HOOSSAYN-obama in-the-white-house-and-my-paper-and-on-my-tv for the next oh-please-god-don't-let-it-be-eight-whole-friggin-years ... it is an itch in a place that cannot be scratched.

still, as evidenced by the — let's say "restrained" — level of enthusiasm for continuing to fight the good fight, monday's rejection of the donofrio application seems to have broken the fever over legitimacy challenges that gripped freeperville over the past weekend:

won’t catch anything with the bate your using.....

maybe we should stop trying to sue our way to elected office? just a thought.

well, it adds up to the notion that marxist obama is certainly hiding SOMETHING!

i tend to think that given all the terrorists and criminals that obama chose (and currently chooses) to hang around with, that someone might feel (rightly or wrongly) in some sort of jeopardy, and flip.

i freely admit that this might be wishful thinking on my part.

sheesh. go judge shopping, find an activist court, sue till you get your way. no thanks.

if i don’t get my pie I’m going to sue him for that.

i'll let ernest thayer take it from here:

"oh, somewhere in this favored land
the sun is shining bright;
the band is playing somewhere
and somewhere hearts are light,
and somewhere men are laughing
and somewhere children shout;
but there is no joy in mudville
mighty casey has struck out."

* ianal: netspeak for "i am not a lawyer."

denied w/o comment

oh well ... despite much hand-wringing from the right, who were looking for the strongest validation available, and as well from the left, who no longer trusted the supreme court after bush v. gore, few folks can say that this result wasn't wholly predictable.

as we heard this morning, the diehard obama derangement syndrome sufferers just lost their latest attempt to get the land's highest court to grant real weight to their legal challenge to obama's november victory. this was an important loss because without the court's attention, the case has little if any opportunity to merit attention from the media. even "respected" "mainstream" conservatives such as limbaugh, hannity and o'reilly have kept their distance on this one. had the court accepted the case, the media rollercoaster would have jumped its rails.

it was an entertaining if not entirely suspenseful weekend, watching the semper fidels of free republic twist themselves into knots waiting for this decision. as an unabashed freeper-voyeur, i posted friday's entry "the supremes and the certificate" and sunday's entry "still room under the bus" to invite you to grab some popcorn with me ...

... and join me on the couch for what had to be the first really great sporting weekend since the election. after eight years of tolerating unfettered right-wing contempt and vitriol, few things provide such cathartic entertainment as watching freepers in turmoil.

so how is freeperville taking the news? silly question, i know.

first a statement from the applicant himself, leo donofrio:

the main stream media should stop saying scotus refused to hear the case. it was distributed for conference on nov. 19. they had the issue before them for for sixteen days. yes, they didn't take it to the next level of full briefs and oral argument. but they certainly heard the case and read the issues. the media is failing to acknowledge that. the case and issues were considered. getting the case to the full court for such consideration was my goal. i trust the supreme court had good reason to deny the application. despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds. please remember that. it's important for history to record that.

of course, by dismissing the application, i'd say that the court just put it out of their minds.

surprisingly, at least one freeper agreed with me:

LOL ..., who is this "baghdad bob"???

sure, "i won because 'it's in their minds ...' "... that's a pretty good one ...

but in the land of the free(per), a true patriot never lays down his arms:

nay sayers, hold on now. as the MSM slowly starts picking this up, it's going to titillate the uneducated masses. there still is time ... but buy your guns and ammo anyway. no reason to take any chances.

well, if the masses find this soap opera as genuinely titillating as i do, then obama has nothing to worry about, if he ever did.

but as they say, never say die. after all, there are other cases in the pipeline waiting to be rejected considered:

[the wrotnowski case] makes number two, another was filed this morning makes three and then there is berg's, makes 5. sometimes in order to break the ice on the lake one must keep piling little rocks on top until it breaks.

hmm ... sounds like four to me, but who's counting?

it can be inferred now that you have two justices interested in moving this case. you need four justices.

all that is necessary is for one lowly judge to issue a preliminary injunction on either the electoral college casting its votes, or them being certified by the congress, or the issuance of an oath of office to 0bama. once that happens, all hell will break loose!

i guess it's not over until the "fat judge" sings.

clearly, what these long marginalized voices badly need and what conservatives have long been denied is a platform to get their message out:

what this screams to me is DUHHH! there is a HUGE opportunity for a conservative to buy up a few of these dying media outlets and start a conservative network. there's a lot of pent up demand. there's freepin' money on the table.

i know it's a long shot, but perhaps this is an idea we could get someone like ... i dunno, say, rupert murdoch interested in?

still, throughout greater freeperville, there was much gnashing and wailing and rending of garments:

the chicago tribune is reporting this? do we have a more reliable source of information this morning?

four justices had to vote to hear the case????? so you are saying that roberts, thomas, alito and scalia was not enough or worse are not really conservatives?????

this means that it is no longer the democrats fault for what is to come. blame is and will be placed squarely at the feet of the supreme court of the united states.

i would say "god help us".... but it looks like his response is "i have seen how you (usa) would thank me". bring your judgement god ... we deserve it!

i think we should swarm obama with copies of our birth certificates (i know ... stupid idea) ... but, i'd LIKE to swarm him with copies of our birth certificates. ... something is fishy for him to fight this so much ... anyone know the statue of limitations on what the hawaiian governor did (sequestering his bc)???

we will be hard pressed to deny anyone the presidency in the future. this ruling means that swartzenegger can run for president. maybe even valiente fox or cesar chavez.

oh, the horror! that even someone born in arizona (even a dead one at that), could possibly become president!

well it's OFFICIAL: the united states constitution is NULL and VOID! it's been fun while it lasted!

great. now nutroots on the right are as apoplectic about the SCOTUS decision IRT OHB as the nutroots on the left were about bush v. gore. time to by stock in the companies that produce paxil, zolof, etc, etc.

the nation that the founding fathers turned over to us is dead.

i just hope that they won't now say that the "donofrio case" sets a precedent and deny all subsequent claims ... if they make it to the SCOTUS in the first place.

if it ever comes to pass that his not eligible, I don't want to hear squat from the press or congress, or the DNC ... cowards all.

why can't the SC ask BO to show THEM his BC?

i'm afraid the political climate has changed beyond the point where those in power care about the rule of law or what the public thinks. representative democracy is nearly dead. peasants don't count for much in an elitist's eyes, until they pick up pitchforks and storm the palace. things will have to become very much worse and intolerable before that will happen here.

i'm at a loss. is president bush in the tank for obama? does he not realize that he, the commander in chief, swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the united states? why is he not spearheading the move to get to the bottom of obama's birth certificate issue if he is not part of a conspiracy to destroy our society and make us all a part of his daddies "new world order?"

please. help me out here. is president bush really so vane and worried about his own legacy that he won't do what is right or will he go down as the last great liberal to let the supreme court decide america's fate.

what good is electing a leader that purportedly defends us and our constitution abroad if he is letting our enemies destroy both the constitution and us from within?

"george w. bush: the last great liberal" — who knew? sounds like a bestseller ...

no longer is it: "we the people" but rather..."you people!" (kooks, nuts, radicals, on-the-fringe fruitcakes")

we might as well kiss the us constitution and the freedoms it grants americans goodbye. this proves the supreme court justices are part of the conspiracy to force an illegible alien, marxist, muslim on the american people.

if scotus lets this pass ignoring the constitution, then i guess that gives everyone carte blanche to ignore all laws.

there are times i have a secret desire the next wot attack is in LA, SFO, or D.C.

umm ... not so secret anymore, creep. thanks for sharing.

still, there is one consolation prize they can take home — at least the case is finally getting the prime-time attention it deserves:

funny how the MSM is picking up the story that it was denied — front page at HuffPost, MSNBC, DU, et al. maybe they were worried after all?

still room under the bus

uh-oh. now he's gone and done it.

bane of our institutes of higher learning and indefatigable stalker of wild-eyed radical leftist educators everywhere, conservative scalp-hunter david horowitz has found himself a new beast to slay:

obama derangement syndrome ... conservatives need to shut up about the birth certificate

zomg stfu!!! you read that right the first time, folks. and that's just the title of his piece. when you make your living breathing fire, pretty soon everybody gets burned. now it's the freepers' turn.

in yesterday's post "the supremes and the certificate", i invited you to grab some popcorn ...

... and join me in what i billed "the first really great sporting weekend since the election": watching freepers work themselves into a dervish, convulsed between both ecstacy and agony at the glorious prospect that the supreme court would at last deign to look upon their latest challenge to obama's legitimacy — a challenge that the high court has all but certain already scraped off its esteemed shoe.

this is the steaming swamp that horowitz has chosen to plunge headfirst into (not that he had very far to leap, mind you):

the continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. the fact that these efforts are being led by alan keyes, an unhinged demagogue on the political fringe who lost a senate election to the then unknown obama by 42 points should be a warning in itself.

sorry, alan, old boy, but even from one fringe conservative to another, that's gonna leave quite a mark. most folks left and right think both david and alan are kooks, but alan did win some newfound respect in freeperville when he took up his sword in defense of the constitution, as approvingly voiced by this commenter:

alan keyes is not a krank. he is a constitutional scholar. there must be something to this or it wouldn’t have legs.

it's so nice to have fans. horowitz may remember that nostalgically one day. after all, he must realize that he's dumping a bucket of ice-water into a tubfull of cats crying loudly in heat. and he really pours it on:

the birth certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether obama was born on u.s. soil. (mccain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the panama canal zone, which is no longer american.)

what difference does it make to the future of this country whether obama was born on us soil? advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for president trumps all others. but how viable will our constitution be if 5 supreme court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?

it is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country's economy and defending its citizens, and — by the way — its constitution.

i have no interest in the constitutional or legal minutiae this faux controversy dredges up, so i'm not going to comment on the substance of horowitz' screed. i'm having way too much fun watching the fur fly, especially when it's freeper fur.

besides, thrashing about in the minutiae of this non-issue is exactly how those pushing it want us to waste our time, and this weekend they are hoping beyond hope that the supreme court will lend its gravity to the cause. just getting the court to not dismiss the application would be a huge victory for them, which would catapult the case out of a small number of red state basements and into the living rooms of much better-occupied americans everywhere else. and that is the main reason all of freeperville has its eye on monday's expected response from the court.

so how are the "sore losers" taking horowitz' advice? there's few surprises with this predictable bunch, but it's never dull watching another apostate disappear violently between axle and asphalt. so without further ado, let the games begin:

david, you, just like michelle malking, medved and countless others NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENTS before spouting off.

their arguments, horowitz, malkin, medved, ed morrissey, etc are juvenile and lack any logic beyond shaking a truther doll at us

clarence thomas, supreme court justice, decided this is worth taking a look at and HE’s the authority, none of yer other boneheads.

yet another ill informed conservative with obama-itis

if horowitz was in the SDS then he’s a communist troll.

listen, horowitz ... the drafters of the constitution envisioned a time when some smooth talking foreigner would bamboozle the dumb ass american retards into voting for someone who has foreign interests in mind. MILLIONS OF VOTES to elect a bad guy. well, conversioner ... it just happened a kenyian muslim with a secret background and a secret agenda and the good citizens of the united states just elected him because he's cute.

i can't believe what I am reading. how can any american even type those words?

comparing this to the 2000 election is totally specious. funny how conservatives are now the "moonbats" according to the left, and right on que "conservative" columnists want to get along to go along and be like the cubs and say wait for next election.

being nice and gentlemanly to liberals never gets anywhere. it emboldens them to be bigger jerks. look at all the hostile and personal crap that harry reid, nancy pelosi, howard dean and the others shoveled at bush over 8 years. have they given him any credit for being a decent guy about it? no. i say let ‘em have it, fast and hard, over obama’s birth certificate or anything else.

he’s afraid no one will take him seriously if anyone associates him with people who are interesting in testing obama’s citizenship. PCism is really taking its toll.

... thanks for showing me your true colors in the heat of battle.

the thought of the 0bamunist being the CIC of our glorious military makes me want to hurl. ... i am sickened by the thought of him and his buddies having access to all our secrets. i hope against hope there is some way to prevent his inauguration as our next president.

still, even freeperville has its doubters ...

look, who among conservatives is going with this story? Your answer should tell you how legit it may be.

horowitz, malkin, limbaugh, medved, hannity, ad infinitum, aren’t touching it. if credentialed conservatives aren’t jumping on the bandwagon then there has ...

... gotta be a reason, folks.

forget the MSM. the fact that no person of consequence on the right has picked up the ball on this is more a reflection of the details than anything else.

... even, shockingly, a rationalist! he must have snuck in through a side window somewhere:

it makes political sense for [obama] to ignore the controversy and treat it as unworthy of public comment. that's why he doesn't take the seemingly simple step of producing a true, original birth certificate if indeed he has it. by refusing to do so he infuriates his right-wing critics, but he infuriates them anyway, so why should he care?

yes, there be doubters, but obviously, not very many:

kinda makes you wonder if they were conservatives in the first place or just in it for the money and the publicity.

freeperville may need to rent a bigger bus soon. after monday, a whole fleet maybe.

the supremes and the certificate

as some of you might know, the supreme court may have already decided whether to dismiss, remand to a lower court or move forward on a review of the latest legal challenge to barack obama's legitimacy as president-elect: the verification (or lack thereof) of his possession of a proper birth certificate.

in a nutshell, a number of sourpusses are demanding, despite the assurances of officials entrusted with the original document, to see this certificate, charging that until it is produced to their satisfaction, obama cannot be considered a "natural born citizen", meaning that we have an usurper in the white house. some of the more affluent proponents of the charge took out two full-page spreads in the chicago tribune this past week to make their case.

a report of some kind, but not necessarily any specific announcement by the high court itself, is expected by the end of monday. most likely, the case will become no more than just another application number in a long list of hundreds of cases regularly dismissed by the court. all that was determined friday was that this case was not one of only two that the court agreed to review.

so if you're like me, an unabashed voyeur of "freeper" angst, you've got your popcorn popped ...

... and are settling in for the first really great sporting weekend since the election. so i invite you to tune into the spectacle of hardcore rightwing heads swelling en masse to the bursting point, with all its attendant maudlin drama.

to the casual spectator freepers may sound the same — that is, absolutely nuts — but to the experienced freeperologist certain distinct themes emerge:

1) projection:

believe me, had mccain won, the left would have been this exact same challenge to him, and be mouthing the same conspiracy theories as well.

the only difference is that most on our side will accept that the supreme court’s action (or non-action) as legitimate, while their side never would.

i think if this had been a "right-winger" with the same problem, the non-"supremes" would have spoken loudly and liberally.

2) anger:

bread and circuses while the constitution is being SPIT on!

more accurately, being urinated upon or worse i’m afraid.

if this is not an invitation to anarchy i don't know what is. we peons have to follow all the rules, or else.

this kenyan; indonesian — whatever he is, can thumb his nose at the constitution and nobody gives a rat's.

geez, what does it take to do the honrable and good thing is country? none of like to do the hard things; but we do them.

3) despair:

... i do think that the republic could burn down around the supreme court, while they take their time taking care of all these things. by the time they do, and take action, the horse is out of the barn and down the road.

what good is it going to do once obama gets into office. he can’t be taken out of office with the democrats in control in congress.

i was hoping at least they would set some standard as to how a person would need to prove they are eligible to be president. after this, i guess it really won’t be an issue and anyone born anywhere can become president of the united states of america. what’s to stop them?

(god yes, what's to stop another kenyan, half-white, muslim, marxist, acorn-scamming, terrorist-palling, "community organizer" from winning another election!?! the horrors!)

4) paranoia:

saul alinsky tactics at work. divide and conquer, philosophically, a divided house falls in upon itself.

this scuffle with the bc is actually more alinsky than a typical election and proceeding as normal. if you know about saul alinksy, everything the democRATS do makes sense.

5) rationalization:

i have every confidence that the supreme court will act appropriately. but the case in front of them has to meet certain standards; if it does, they will grant cert. if it doesn’t, they might remand or take other action. they may even outline their reasoning (which is what i’m hoping for).

i don’t believe for a minute that they will shy away from any case that they know really must be heard and possibly decided by the SCOTUS. right now, it’s just a question of how they evaluate the case and what their initial read on the legal and factual issues is.

the odds are in favor of them finding (inventing) some esoteric or archane legal technicality to justify not hearing the case.

6) defiance:

if (as expected) the court tosses the suit, bredow will start challenging obama's legitimacy based on "foreign money that went into his campaign." other protestors said they'd start contacting members of the electoral college. steve brindle, who drove down from pennsylvania, said he'd called his senators yesterday.

if this case is denied and somehow obamafraud is actually sworn in i hope that ALL defense attorneys in this country are lined up filing suits on behave of their clients. saying all laws of the US are now null and void since the POTUS is a usurper. let’s have a free-for-all.

i hope some court somewhere in the US will actually subpoena his birth certificate. there must be some court/judge that actually takes his oath to uphold the constitution seriously.

given that just "15 to 20 people showed up" to friday's gathering of support for the case on the steps of the supreme court, i'm not gonna hold my breath on that "free-for-all".

7) boundless hope:

the beauty of leo’s case is that it potentially could be remanded to NJ for further briefing or even trial. this is because NJ seems to be one of the few states that actually imposed more than a ministerial duty upon its SOS to ensure eligible candidates are on the ballot.

since NJ had a statute imposing some duty on the SOS, and at least arguably the SOS did not fulfil that duty, it seems the SCOTUS could find some way to send it back and tell the NJ courts to define the scope of the duty imposed by the statute and find whether or not the SOS fulfilled it. somewhere in that process, the SOS might actually be required to verify Obama’s eligibility and that process could be amenable to review by the SCOTUS.

[emphases mine.]

the one thing i was looking forward to is perhaps a positive nod towards conferencing on the case would have forced the MSM to get more involved. we will wait until monday and pray ... prayer does work!!!!

prayer in fact does work ... just not for republicans.

who's laffin' now?

no one, actually.

but if anyone deserves to enjoy a chuckle, it's financial cassandra peter schiff.

and if a network deserves to be laughed out of existence, it's fox news.

schiff: the basic problem in the u.s. economy is that we have too much consumption and borrowing and not enough production and savings. what's going to happen is that the american consumer is bascially going to stop consuming and start rebuilding his savings, especially when he sees his home equity evaporate. when you have an economy at 70% consumption, you can't address those imbalances without a recession.

laffer: i think peter is totally off-base and i don't know where he's getting his stuff.

schiff: this is just getting started. this is not just sub-prime. this is a problem for the entire mortgage industry. it's not just people with bad credit that committed to mortgages they can't afford. it's not just people with bad credit who are going to see their home equity vanish. and it's not limited to mortgage credit. americans are going to have a difficult time borrowing money to buy cars, to buy furniture, to buy appliances. foreigners around the world have been lending us money for years — they are now finding out that we can't afford to repay. this is going to be an enormous credit crunch. the party is over for the united states of america.

stein: you're simply wrong about that. ... the financials are a super bargain.

pundit 1: i think the worst is over.

pundit 2: i think stocks will be a heckuva lot higher a year from now then they are today.

the new new republicans: a taxonomy

back in february 2006, glenn greenwald's examination of president bush's supporters got a lot of well-deserved attention on both the left and right wings of the blogosphere. some commenters noted that glenn's characterization of bush's supporters failed to account for other bases or wellsprings of bush support, i.e., lust for power, wealth, etc., but i don't believe that glenn was attempting to be all-inclusive.

to that end i assembled "the new republicans: a taxonomy" of the different species of bush supporter that i had observed at the time. two and a half years and an election cycle later, i've decided to revisit that exercise, especially now that bush's star has since fallen so low even among his once most fervent cheerleaders, so i've revised some entries and added a few new ones.

note that these classifications are not meant to be exhaustive or mutually exclusive; many republicans will fit easily into multiple categories. ultimately, there may be as many reasons rationalizations for being a republican as there are republicans.

1) republicana vulgaris: new!

glorifies the "common people"; exalts "patriotism"; disdains erudition, sophistication, nuance and worldliness; will exploit any brand of xenophobia and pander to white men's basest instincts. example: alaska governor and former vice presidential nominee sarah palin.

we believe that the best of america is not all in washington, d.c.

we believe ... we believe that the best of america is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what i call the real america, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-america areas of this great nation. this is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday americans. those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. those who are protecting us in uniform. those who are protecting the virtues of freedom.

our opponent ... is someone who sees america, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.

2) republicanus cultus: revamped!

"true believers"; worships guns, god, country, hearth and "heroes"; obsessed with displays and rituals of masculinity; virulently homophobic; abhors criticism and dissent; always in search of the next hero figure, and once found, will follow said "hero" off a cliff. see republicanus dumosus. example: almost any member of the blog free republic.

if [harvey milk] had wanted to be a real hero he'd have leaped in front of the mayor and taken both rounds.

3) republicanus potentia:

seeks power; will support any act and entertain any justification that may increase or perpetuate their hold on power. example: vice president dick cheney.

go fuck yourself.

4) republicanus pecuniosus:

seeks wealth; will support any act and entertain any justification that may increase or perpetuate their fortunes. example: media mogul rupert murdoch.

the greatest thing to come out of [the war in iraq] for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil. that's bigger than any tax cut in any country.

5) republicanus bellicosus:

loves force; disdains diplomacy and dissent; will wield force as an all-purpose tool towards achieving their goals, as opposed to a means of last resort. example: arizona senator and former presidential nominee john mccain.

you know that old beach boys song, "bomb iran"?

bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb iran ...

6) republicanus imperiosus:

loves being number one; will not accept second place or share power; will not rest as long as any other power exists to thwart republican political supremacy or american international hegemony. example: former u.n. ambassador john bolton.

[clinton] did not see or understand that the u.n. was only an instrument of american policy, not the policy itself ... he forgot that the u.n. was an instrument to be used to advance america’s foreign policy interests, not to engage in international social work.

7) republicanus fundamentalis:

in love with their own righteousness; disdains tolerance; virulently homophobic; will not rest until all others either submit to their moral yardstick or are annihilated. example: catholic league president bill donohue.

we've already won. who really cares what hollywood thinks? all these hacks come out there. hollywood is controlled by secular jews who hate christianity in general and catholicism in particular. it's not a secret, okay? and i'm not afraid to say it. ... hollywood likes anal sex. they like to see the public square without nativity scenes. i like families. i like children. they like abortions. i believe in traditional values and restraint. they believe in libertinism. we have nothing in common. but you know what? the culture war has been ongoing for a long time. their side has lost.

8) republicana contraria:

hates liberals; will support any act and entertain any justification that may offend liberals; will categorically denounce any statement made by a liberal; will denounce as "liberal" anyone or any statement that criticizes or contradicts them. example: columnist ann coulter.

i've decided to cut out the part of the speech where i say anything nice about democrats.

9) republicanus sapiens: new!

exudes conventional wisdom; worships "bipartisanship"; considers themselves "sensible centrists"; consistently overestimates conservatives and underestimates liberals; consistently substitutes their own opinions as that of "the american people"; their dubious reputations consistently defy all blemish. example: washington post columnist and "dean" of the d.c. press club david broder.

... what this country and the world desperately need [is] an american national security policy that commands broad support across party lines ...

10) republicanus goldwaterus:

espouses traditional conservative principles and respect for the rule of law; disdains waste and adventurism; thoroughly disillusioned with bush; sadly, a dying breed. example: former georgia congressman and libertarian presidential nominee bob barr.

are we losing our lodestar, which is the bill of rights? are we in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle? do we truly remain a society that believes that ... every president must abide by the law of this country? i, as a conservative, say yes.

11) republicanus moderabilis: new!

traditional moderates; prefers the status quo; disdains change, bold ideas or zealotry, but reliably relents, after perfunctory protest, to the party's will, wherever it leads; another dying breed. example: pennsylvania senator arlen spector.

arguing against the military commissions act:

what the bill seeks to do is set back basic rights by some nine hundred years.

justifying his vote for the act:

i think the courts will invalidate it. they’re not going to give up authority to decide habeas-corpus cases, not a chance.

12) republicana non grata: new!

once fiercely loyal, now openly criticizes fellow republicans; sentenced to exile by republicanus cultus; thoroughly disillusioned with the party and, for the time being, will accept exile; a vastly multiplying breed. example: columnist kathleen parker.

three little letters, great big problem: g-o-d. i'm bathing in holy water as i type.

... the grand old party ... has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners.

short break as writer ties blindfold and smokes her last cigarette.

focus on the family chairman james dobson (r. fundamentalis) takes aim and fires:

whatever she once was, ms. parker is certainly not a conservative anymore, having apparently realized it’s a lot easier to be popular among your journalistic peers when your keyboard tilts to the left.

13) republicanus oportunitas:

a grab-bag of special interests; not staunch republicans, but will take advantage of any opportunity to further their own causes, which during the bush administration meant supporting republicans. example: lobbyists.

after eight years of the so-called k street project — the effort by republican lawmakers and operatives to pressure companies, trade associations and lobbying firms to hire their fellow republicans — the tasseled loafer is on the other foot. companies and interest groups are competing to snap up democrats.

14) republicanus democratus:

a snake in sheep's clothing and/or judas goat; may fit within any of the other categories; registered or professed democrat. example: connecticut senator joe lieberman.

the democratic party today was not the party it was in 2000. it's not the bill clinton-al gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government. it's been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will — and very, very hyperpartisan. so it pains me.

such a poor, wounded creature it is, the r. democratus.

15) republicanus dumosus: new!

idolizes bush; disdains criticism and dissent; will support any act of bush and entertain any justification of his actions; a particularly virulent offshoot of republicanus cultus; thankfully, an almost extinct breed. example: lawyer and blogger john hinderaker, a.k.a. "hindrocket".

it must be very strange to be president bush. a man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. he is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

cnn asks: where's the love?

rick sanchez: i want you to look at this video, alright? it seems almost sad. look at this — this is the president of the united states walking out on stage to take a picture with world leaders, invited to the g-20 summit over the weekend. look at him. and he seems like the most unpopular kid in high school that nobody liked, uh, the one with the cooties. everybody's shaking hands, but he walks in, and nobody's shaking his hand, and he's not shaking anybody's hand. this is different, though, because, look, i'll let you watch this again — watch, everybody's shaking hands ... he's not shaking hands. remember just six years ago? he was, quote, "the bully", who everyone seemed to like — or did they just pretend to like him? by the way, just to be clear: "bully" is not my word. it's one of the words most used to describe the bush administration's foreign and economic policies around the world. to check, i googled "bush" and "bully" together — you ready? — two million, five hundred thousand hits! this may be a case of "what goes around, comes around", maybe not ...

boy, was i wrong

i think atrios @ eschaton put it best today:

today is a lovely day to eat some shit.

(actually, it wasn't all that lovely where i live; it was cold and gray.)

yesterday i put together a tentative headcount on the lieberman vote, documenting as best i could the available evidence for each eligible voter's leanings. who would support the resolution? who had gone on record for joe? who had supported him in the past? long diary short: i couldn't put together more than 7 potential votes in joe's favor.

well, we can't be right all the time, but rarely am i this wrong. i'd misread just about everything.

but instead of trying to chase down all the possible explanations after the fact for why which senator voted the way he or she did, i'm singularly puzzled by just one question: what cards does joe have? i've yet to hear a completely satisfactory explanation for the vote. perhaps the bitter truth is that the explanation isn't satisfactory to anybody but joe.

like many, jonathan singer at mydd seems to believe that it was obama's nod to the senate helped swing the day for joe:

yet lieberman could make obama's life more difficult as an angry gadfly (a tom coburn, as it were) than he would as chairman of the homeland security committee — particularly if he owed his chairmanship to obama, which he does. under this rationale, obama will have an easier go in forwarding his legislative agenda in the senate with lieberman beholden to him than lieberman weaker, but mad at him.

the only problem i have with this explanation (not that i think it's necessarily wrong) is that, as we all know, lieberman's biggest crimes are deceit and disloyalty. as benjamin disraeli once remarked of a political opponent:

he is a systematic liar and a beggarly cheat; a swindler and a poltroon. he has committed every crime that does not require courage.

after all, didn't lieberman already owe obama his senate seat?

a top official on joe lieberman's 2006 senate reelection campaign tells me that lieberman's staff practically begged barack obama to come in and endorse him at a critical moment — requests that obama agreed to, helping lieberman minimize the damage from challenger ned lamont's recent entry into the contest.

apparently that favor wasn't big enough to prevent joe from campaigning against not only him, but every democrat.

perhaps saving lieberman's chair was obama's wish, but i just can't see what lieberman has to offer in return that doesn't require all of us having to trust him again.

all right, it's time for my shit sandwich. pass the condiments.

beam me up now!

perhaps more than most star trek fans, the deeply dispirited hardcore right wingers at the blog free republic are especially excited about next year's new star trek movie:

it warrants 400 posts at least. if you haven’t noticed, obama is president, biden is veep, and hillary is secretary of state. this country needs some escape, and hope for a future. let us have our 30 star trek posts. WOOOOo HoOoOooO STar TREK!!!!!!!

lieberman's fate: a preliminary headcount

tomorrow decides the fates of two senators, one a professed democrat, the other a republican. while ted stevens faces certain expulsion from the senate for his conviction on corruption charges, joe lieberman's fate seems less clear.

that the leadership wants to take joe's chairs from him seems clear. the chairs are joe's by default, if he wants them, which is what this whole hubbub's about. if the senate does nothing, he gets to keep them. no vote is required. this entire discussion would be moot. so by staging a vote, reid is making his intentions clear about removing joe.

like the president-elect, reid prefers little drama, which is why he privately offered joe lesser seats on other committees as a consolation prize for going gently into the night and not making a stink, especially in front of any cameras:

"if they aren't able to work something out satisfactorily, there will be a vote in the caucus." "that's lieberman's decision."

unfortunately, joe loves drama, especially when he's the center of it, so joe sent out an aide to the hartford courant to let everyone know not only that reid's deal was "unacceptable" but also to drop a none-too-subtle threat:

"sen. lieberman prefers to remain in the democratic caucus, however, he believes he should remain as chairman of the homeland security committee."

... a threat punctuated with joe's characteristic sanctimony:

[joe] "thinks that political retribution should not go ahead of homeland security."

joe lieberman: the sine qua non of homeland security. reading that really must have made harry very happy.

so joe's thrown down his gauntlet and forced reid's hand. it's all or nothing now.

harry, as promised, has thrown the question to the caucus. while the ballot is secret and makes each member's vote both unpredictable and unverifiable, i believe harry reid is no complete buffoon. every lawyer knows better than to ask a witness a question the lawyer himself doesn't already know the answer to. reid would have to be completely tone-deaf to his colleagues to stage a vote he knows he can't win. joe has few friends on his side of the aisle. out of 53 eligible votes, he needs 27. there will be no tie.

still, the exact nature of the vote remains up in the air:

still, as of now, it's still not precisely clear what exactly reid will throw over to his caucus to vote on tomorrow. last week leadership aides were adamant that the vote would be over his committee chairmanship. but it's now unclear whether reid will follow through on this specific vote or whether he'll ask the dem caucus to vote on a compromise or a lesser punishment.

but if the vote becomes a straightforward question of "does joe keep his chairs?", then here are the tentative votes in reid's corner:

1) the leadership (4):

reid: leading the move to dethrone joe

dorgan: "as a chairman of one of our significant committees in the senate, not just going off and supporting a presidential candidate of the other side but also criticizing the candidate on our side, and also involving himself in a couple of senate races on the other side. the question is, is that acceptable? the answer is no."

durbin* and schumer: "interestingly, people like dick durbin who is the first democrat in the senate — the first senator, and from Illinois, to support barack obama — is really loaded for bear about lieberman, he wants to kick lieberman off that chairmanship. chuck schumer, the head of the campaign committee likewise."

*durbin's reportedly been making noises in lieberman's favor:

durbin: [senate democrats should be] "gracious in victory" [toward lieberman]. "despite what sen. lieberman did in campaigning for sen. mccain, speaking at the republican convention, he has voted with the democrats an overwhelming percentage of the time."

... but has said nothing specific about his chair.

2) other vocal reid supporters (3):

leahy: "i'm one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did." "i would feel that had i done something similar, that i would not be chairman of the senate judiciary committee in the next congress."

sanders*: "to reward senator lieberman with a major committee chairmanship would be a slap in the face of millions of americans who worked tirelessly for barack obama and who want to see real change in our country."

*sanders might not be allowed to vote.

carper: "there need to be consequences, and they cannot be insignificant." "many of my colleagues … are very angry with his criticism of sen. obama."

carper's statement is significant since he was reportedly one of four democrats lobbying on lieberman's behalf. i guess he heard something that changed his mind.

3) i think many of those who backed ned lamont against lieberman will likely back reid (16):

akaka*, boxer, cantwell, clinton, feingold, feinstein, harkin, kennedy, kerry, kohl, menendez, murray, stabenow, reed, rockefeller, wyden

*since akaka is reportedly in line for joe's chair, i think reid can count on his vote.

4) lastly, i think reid can count on the new incoming comfirmed members (3):

merkley, udall, udall

meanwhile, in joe's corner we have:

1) the following vocal supporters (2):

bayh*: "i think reconciliation is in order, not revenge or retribution." "i think we had to just let bygones be bygones."

*bayh was a lamont supporter.

dodd: [obama has] "talked about reconciliation, healing, bringing people together. i don't think he'd necessarily want to spend the first month of this president-elect period, this transition period, talking about a senate seat, particularly if someone is willing to come forward and is willing to be a member of your family in the caucus in that sense."

2) others reportedly making calls for lieberman (2):

salazar, nelson

3) others who supported lieberman against lamont (3):

inouye, landrieu, pryor

so the tentative vote count stands at reid (26), lieberman (7), unaccounted for (20).

even with a lot of unaccounted votes, the "temperature", as carper put it, is very chill towards joe. how many can he realistically add to his seven? not enough, i think.

i think he's gonna lose that chair.