Pander

And let’s be clear about Joe Lieberman and the mealymouthed MSM so-called pundits who seem genuinely aghast at his losing the Connecticut Democratic Primary to Ned Lamont. They seemed shocked and awed that poor Joe had been so readily trashed. As Eric Boehlert has catalogued some of these pundits [The Nation, August 11, 2006], Al Hunt (Bloomberg News), David Brooks (New York Times), Joe Klein (Time), and David Gergen (US News), for example, were all pissing and moaning about what a fine, sweet, decent, intelligent, kind-hearted, well-intentioned, and likable guy their old pal Joe is and what a disaster his defeat would be for the balance of power in this country. First of all, what balance of power? Then you might wonder about these pundits’ motives and their unmitigated gall. A pundit, incidentally, is supposed to be “a learned man,” an informed commentator, defined in Webster’s also as “a person who gives opinions in an authoritative manner usually through the mass media.” Well, they do give opinions but apparently not learned ones. These MSM pundits seem to be taking this so personally. You'd think Lieberman was their love child. How could the voters, actual American citizens, do this to such a nice guy? Well, the truth is this guy may not be so nice, after all, now that he is out there defensively strutting his stuff with a somewhat sanctimonious swagger. And during his terms in office he has appeared alternately as a namby-pamby, egotistical, and self-righteous sycophant pretty much out for himself. He does not seem to exhibit any serious vision or geopolitical intelligence. After all these years, what is his legacy? Aside from buttressing pharma firms at home and a war movie in Iraq, what is his platform? Simply being nice? To the right people on K Street, perhaps. In fact, he comes off more as a pussy than a politician even. And now, backed into a corner, he’s beginning to sound a little arrogant. He is a caricature, and the administration loves him. They love to sweep the floor with him. And with his obsequious pandering he has become “a disaster for the Democratic Party,” as Cokie Roberts actually characterized his opposition. Martin Peretz at The New Republic apparently feels threatened by the “thought-enforcers of the left.” The what? What are these people smoking? But then, the word pundit is from the Hindu pandit which sounds suspiciously symbiotic to pander.

Terriflying

Let’s be clear about this “war on terror,” especially as the administration continues to politicize it in their frail favor. The suspects just arrested in London for plotting to blow up international airline flights did not come from Iraq or Saddam Hussein. They appear to be mostly homegrown, as was Sayyid Qutb in Greeley, Colo., when he helped launch a plane of thought that would crash fifty-two years later into the World Trade Center with Saudi Arabian pilots. The British-born Muslims collared in Londonistan seem to have been working with other Brits in Pakistan. Cheney, Bush, and even Joe Lieberman would have us believe that anyone against the war in Iraq—and especially Democrats who voted for Ned Lamont against Lieberman (the administration’s adopted little Democon)—is against the war on terror and our national security. In fact, the administration has exacerbated worldwide terror with their random action in Iraq. Hussein is tried for a 20-year-old crime that had nothing to do with the United States, while Osama bin Laden remains at large. The pretenders in this farce are not waging a war on terror. They are making a Hollywood movie, and they are definitely using stunt doubles. They have done little if anything to bring Osama or Al Qaeda to justice. If anything, they have created another haven in Iraq for terrorists to flourish, and they have aggravated chaos in the Middle East. They are waging a war of propaganda against the so-called Muslim fascists that is designed to buttress their fumbling as some kind of aggressive security blanket. But the administration’s policies are reckless because the policymakers are feckless if not downright venal and ultimately cynical. And this is just plain dangerous for everyone, especially for those of us these policies are supposed to protect.

Disturbing

Disturbing the news
Is disturbing enough
Faux news at Fox
Hissing Hussein
WMDs to Hezbollah
Strains to incite
Irrational fears
Feeding belief
And rationalization
In spite of what’s right
The fright of the night
And all its might be left
Delusional grandeur
And cynical psychos
Manipulating the minds
Of masses en masse
And the religiously fervored
To believe in the right
Even when it’s not
And the news is disturbing.